3 things I'm tired of

[Von Earlmann]

In no particular order

Scenarios that depict the Axis powers as being almost invincible......some of them are only missing the actual superman.

The stupid and boring disrupt surround and win the assault automatically routine.EA is far more preferable for me.

Armor facing.....the scale of this game makes this another one of those rules not required.

So, once my current games are done I will not play with armor facing on and with EA off again...........just saying.

I dig the fact that a lot of people prefer them both.........I'm ok with that but we won't meet on the electonic battlefield again.

VE

[junk2drive]

I think I have to agree with your list. I don't use AF vs the AI because it can't use it. It doesn't seem to make the game worse for me.

[schnurbart]

I dont understand the issue. The allies can do the same tactics ad infinitum. EA is only really valid in scenarios with huge win loss ratios with the first side always winning. Scenarios desighed with ea in mind are just fine.

[Jeff Conner]

Can someone point me to how EA changes the assault routine as I can't seem to find anything in the manual?

Thanks in advance.

[Crossroads]

There's an EA document in the Manuals folder within the install directory. I can't recall whether it explains the logic or not... Worth a read regardless.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Jeff,

It's not in the manual. It's in a doc folder inside the Matrix JTCS game folder.

Assaulting with the 1.04 UPDATE
August 18, 2008 by Jason Petho

With the 1.04 UPDATE you will find that the new Assaulting Rules have been optional. You may find them within the Optional Rules dialogue when starting a new scenario, whether that is for PBEM or standalone against the computer.
If you do not choose the Extreme Assault option, you will play under the pre-1.03 UPDATE rules where disrupting the units in a hex is all that is required to successfully assault a hex. The Talonsoft method. On the other hand, if you do choose the Extreme Assault option, you will play under the 1.04 UPDATE rules where a guaranteed assault is no longer the “norm”.
So, how does it work?
In the wise words of our brilliant programmer, Wyatt:

Essentially, when a hex full of units is attacked by an assaulting force, the game takes count of all the factors of the attacker vs all the factors in the defending stack.  It also takes count of the number of counters (units) in the defending hex and evaluates them for various conditions like armor assaulting into an urban or open hex, fortifications, modifying terrain, etc.  For our new processing I also had the software sum up the different morale values of the different units and derive an average based on the number of units in the defending stack.  If any units in the stack are disrupted, their morale level is counted at a -3 of what is shown in the unit information box.  This has the adverse effect of lowering the average morale of the stack and presents a realistic problem for the defender.
 
When the assault is executed, the software goes to the combat routines and conducts casualty assessment based largely on the same principles that govern shooting combat.  Except in this case its defense and offense values are independent of armor facing.
 
When the casualty assessment is finished, the software conducts a die roll and compares it to an odds based combat results table that I developed.  If the attacker wins the die roll an automatic -5 is applied to the defender's morale, simulating the fact that the attacker won and its effect on the defending unit’s morale.  If the defender wins, his morale is increased by 3, again simulating an increase due to victory over the attacker.  The game then does a morale check based on the defender's modified average morale.  If the defender fails his morale check and there are undisrupted units in the attacking force, then the assault is successful and the defender is subject to the software's retreat processing.  Otherwise, the defender wins and remains in his hex.
 
It should be noted at this point that I did not modify the retreat processing at all and that it is now and always has been identical to what the original designers put into the game.  That being the case, it is still possible to surround and destroy units.  As I said before, it has always been possible to do so, even in 1.03.  Except now it is harder to do.  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.
 
The odds based combat results table is the real gem in all of this for while it still makes it harder for assaults conducted at below 1:1 to succeed, it also allows the worst case attack a 15 percent chance of victory over the defender.  This is also reflected at the top of the scale where the defender still has at least a 10% chance of defeating the attacker.  And then no matter what happens, it is always possible that the defender might either fail or pass his morale check and completely negate the odds based die roll.
 
So what does this all mean to the guy playing the game?  Simply this, nothing is as predictable as it was before.  A player can plan his odds of success, and yet, no matter how well he plans, he may still lose.  Or else he can try an enormous gamble that might otherwise be doomed to failure, and see it succeed.
 
Basically, an attacker has his best chances of success if he can find ways to reduce the defender's morale.  This can be done either by firing at them and reducing their strength (often accompanied by a morale loss), disrupting them, or both.  So just as in real life, it is always wise to soften up a target before you hit it.
 
Assaults can result in high casualties for either side.  A number of successful tank attacks ultimately bogged down and halted during the secondary assaults after the attacking units were disrupted or damaged during the initial assaults.   On the other hand, an attack can defeat a stack of units causing them casualties and reducing their morale.  Further attacks can continue the attrition process and the defending stack can find itself sent back multiple times in a cascading series of defeats that continually erodes its strength and morale.  Or they can beat the crap out of the attacker in the secondary assault and stop him dead.
 
Armor alone inside cities versus infantry is at a severe disadvantage.  But if they are heavier units like Panthers, Tigers, and Bears, they may at least survive any onslaughts from attacking infantry.  However, infantry can now defeat armor inside urban hexes, even in the attack.


I really couldn’t explain it better myself. Principally, the assault_basics_v1_20080115.pdf is still relatively accurate and you may wish to use it as a guideline when deciding on when and where to assault.
Any questions? Feel free to post on the Matrix Games Message Board in the Campaign Series Forum and the questions will be answered accordingly.
Hope you enjoy the new system!
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
_______________________________________________________
I underlined and "bolded" the parts I do not like. I totally disagree that "it is still easy to beat" disrupted units. I seem to have that bad luck of the disrupted and lower "moraled" unit that rolls its "save" die. I do not agree with the "wise words" and/or Jason's "good luck". Luck with EA on is my bad luck.

As for Earls comments.
I think designers hold the key to Axis invincibility?
EA should only be used in scenarios designed for it.
I like armor facing.

That said, I am not so entrenched that I will not follow Earl's rules, or refuse a match, if he challenges me to a game.
I play to the rules of my opponents.



HSL

[Crossroads]

In no particular order

Scenarios that depict the Axis powers as being almost invincible......some of them are only missing the actual superman.

The stupid and boring disrupt surround and win the assault automatically routine.EA is far more preferable for me.

Armor facing.....the scale of this game makes this another one of those rules not required.

So, once my current games are done I will not play with armor facing on and with EA off again...........just saying.

I dig the fact that a lot of people prefer them both.........I'm ok with that but we won't meet on the electonic battlefield again.

VE

Earl, perhaps you should post this in the "Personal ROEs" sticky thread, so this will not get lost in the forums? https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...?tid=61755

Axis invincibility... I guess I have been then lucky to not play too many such scenarios. A Legend Is Born was such, hated it very much as Allied player. I was writing an AAR while playing as Axis so did not realise how slkewed it was. But yes, any unbalanced scenario is not fun, be it Axis or Allied.

My personal favorites tend to be from era of 1943-44, where even as Axis I typically have StuGs and Pz IVs that do not have that era of invincibility around them.

Armor facing... Not a great fan of AF either, especially as you see your tanks annihilated within a turn with the help of retreat functionality as it currently is. It has not completely turned me off as of yet though.

EA... EA, the friend of anyone having a defending position in a scenario? Or maybe not. I've recently played a couple of scenarios where EA=off gave me significant advantage when facing a superior attack.

*Fight For Rubble especially so. With the help of artillery I was guaranteed to face key hexes with many of attacking units disrupted. With rotation, I could always count on at least one depleted Para unit being available for a bold counter attack, taking over the hex full of attackers, capturing the lot a few times as well.

On the other hand, while testing my latest scenario, I had to check if I indeed had EA=on truly on. Having the means for multiple assaults the Soviets absolutely steamrolled the defending pill boxes and trench systems. Disrupt/kill, assault. Repeat assault. Then repeat it again.

As always, this is what the optional rules are for? Something for everyone. Beauty indeed is in the eye of the beholder

[von Manstein]

EA... EA, the friend of anyone having a defending position in a scenario? Or maybe not. I've recently played a couple of scenarios where EA=off gave me significant advantage when facing a superior attack.

*Fight For Rubble especially so. With the help of artillery I was guaranteed to face key hexes with many of attacking units disrupted. With rotation, I could always count on at least one depleted Para unit being available for a bold counter attack, taking over the hex full of attackers, capturing the lot a few times as well.

The same thing about Fight For Rubble. I was pretty sure i will win this as Axis with EA-off. Disrupt, counterattack ... sometimes surround and capture.

[Von Earlmann]

I dont understand the issue. The allies can do the same tactics ad infinitum.

I know they can with points 2 and 3 and I dislike it no matter the side.....as to EA and large scenarios......I only play large scenarios :-)

As to point one I have played so many scenarios where the Axis are loaded with things they couldn't possibly have had, or in numbers they couldn't possibly have had.......yes I know that is a designer issue until someone wants me to play it..........then it becomes a player issue and while I hate to quit games I can only stand these scenarios for so many turns.......of course it could be me; as I age my patience level decreases

Side note.... I am playing von Niemacks "The Long Shot" and it seems refreshingly accurate as to types and numbers of German armor. So far it has been a fun and extremely challenging game. Also, "A Christmas Battle"....the Italians are far from invincible and it gives a good feel of the numerical numbers of Soviet infantry and arty....even tho I am on the short end of it I have had fun playing it as a team game........
PS:Ed we should be using EA in this one I think it would balance it a bit but fun anyway :-)

VE

[Herr Straße Laufer]

As to point one I have played so many scenarios where the Axis are loaded with things they couldn't possibly have had, or in numbers they couldn't possibly have had.......yes I know that is a designer issue until someone wants me to play it..........then it becomes a player issue and while I hate to quit games I can only stand these scenarios for so many turns.......of course it could be me; as I age my patience level decreases

Side note.... I am playing von Niemacks "The Long Shot" and it seems refreshingly accurate as to types and numbers of German armor. So far it has been a fun and extremely challenging game. Also, "A Christmas Battle"....the Italians are far from invincible and it gives a good feel of the numerical numbers of Soviet infantry and arty....even tho I am on the short end of it I have had fun playing it as a team game........
PS:Ed we should be using EA in this one I think it would balance it a bit but fun anyway :-)

VE

Earl,
I have seen designers who put in German tanks, before their production was historically complete, in numbers that were months work of production time. Some even a year in advance. Then they pick units for the Allies that give them numbers but are equipment that was not top of the line concerning what was historically available to them.
Then they call it the greatest tank battle ever, after making the Allies the attacker.
Yup, that's not a keeper.

I'll go back and look at "Long Shot". I've found a lot of von Niemack scenarios to often lean toward the Axis side.
As far as EA in "Christmas Battle"? Yikes! The Italians do need some help.
I'd still need my brown pants.



HSL