3 things I'm tired of

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

To EA or not to EA? That is the question?

My apologies to Shakespeare... as I butcher one of his famous lines! ;)

I'll throw my into this discussion too!

IMO, EA is a situational optional rule. It "breaks" many "pre-EA" designed scenarios and unbalances many "classical" ones. It's fine for scenarios designed with EA in mind.

And in terms of scenario design, EA is sometimes the "only" method available to the designer, to achieve balance. For example, in my Rising Sun "The Battle of Manila" scenario under going testing in the H2H Section; I originally designed it without using EA. Unfortunately, in repeated test games, the Americans were able to steamroll the defending Japanese and essentially win the game halfway through the 20 turn scenario. For a battle that historians have described as the "worst urban warfare in the Pacific theater," my scenario was pretty much an American "cake walk" without using EA. :)

However, in an ideal JTCS world, I would like to see a close assault rule that eliminated and voided the "disrupt-surround-destroy" tactics... but took it a step down from current EA game mechanics. IMO, EA essentially decreases and in some cases, eliminates the option for players to actually use close assault - even when preceding assaults with the recommended "softening up" by massive amounts of direct and indirect fire into enemy held areas. This restriction on close assault is especially true when attacking entrenched defenders in built up areas like suburbs and city hexes.

NET: I think EA went a little too far to the "Extreme" side of close assault... and if it could be "moved" a little more to the "less-Extreme" side... it would be an acceptable compromise for more players.

Hopefully, we are not with rolling out another EA discussion?

[Crossroads]

To EA or not to EA? That is the question?

Indeed!

My apologies to Shakespeare... as I butcher one of his famous lines! ;)

I'll throw my into this discussion too!

IMO, EA is a situational optional rule. It "breaks" many "pre-EA" designed scenarios and unbalances many "classical" ones. It's fine for scenarios designed with EA in mind.

I am not quite sure whether we can generalise on EA on/off to either direction? It requires a different planning & execution for sure. The rest depends on map to some extent, but on available forces mostly.

And in terms of scenario design, EA is sometimes the "only" method available to the designer, to achieve balance. For example, in my Rising Sun "The Battle of Manila" scenario under going testing in the H2H Section; I originally designed it without using EA. Unfortunately, in repeated test games, the Americans were able to steamroll the defending Japanese and essentially win the game halfway through the 20 turn scenario. For a battle that historians have described as the "worst urban warfare in the Pacific theater," my scenario was pretty much an American "cake walk" without using EA. :)

This is interesting as it is the total opposite of *Fight for rubble, where EA=off enables the defender to hold off superior enemy forces. With EA=On, the defender would have had absolutely no chances for succesful counter attacks, but would have slowly and surely lost the battle of attrition and lost the Victory locations to enemy.

I need to play Manila scenario at some point of time to understand the difference here.

However, in an ideal JTCS world, I would like to see a close assault rule that eliminated and voided the "disrupt-surround-destroy" tactics... but took it a step down from current EA game mechanics. IMO, EA essentially decreases and in some cases, eliminates the option for players to actually use close assault - even when preceding assaults with the recommended "softening up" by massive amounts of direct and indirect fire into enemy held areas. This restriction on close assault is especially true when attacking entrenched defenders in built up areas like suburbs and city hexes.

Again I am not sure this is the general truth. It may very well be the case in scenarios you have played so I am not saying I do not believe you. It is just different from what I've seen.

First, the classic EA=Off can be fun on certain scenarios, on that I agree with. Then again, EA=On can be absolute fun as well. It really depends on the scenario, be it a stock scenario or not. Many scenarios can be equally played with either option.

I do not agree that a scenario needs necessarily be designed for EA=On, but I agree that it needs to have certain preconditions that allow for different tactics. Time / length may or may not be one of them.

Secondly, EA=On does not require massive firepower or preparations. Just enough to cause a disruption or preferrably kills on one of the defending units. After that, the odds on assault being succesful are greatly improved.

Take a pill box for an example. In many cases it is easier to take on a pill box with EA=On, as otherwise each and every unit would need to be disrupted. Now that requires massive firepower.

With EA=On, target the weakest unit, blast it with firepower you've got, and assault the hex preferrably with good assault factors and from various directions, and in a manner you can prefferrably do a few assaults in the same turn. If the first assault provides a kill or disruption on defender, that is the sign the hex is about to fall. Stay the course!

All it requires is to have the units available. Not necessarily more turns, or anything like that.

NET: I think EA went a little too far to the "Extreme" side of close assault... and if it could be "moved" a little more to the "less-Extreme" side... it would be an acceptable compromise for more players.

That maybe true. EA could be a slide bar? Low as currently without it, Middle for new middle ground, and Hard as it is currently implemented? Something for everyone.

Hopefully, we are not with rolling out another EA discussion?

We most certainly are, but in a civilised manner. Long may it continue

[Kool Kat]

This is interesting as it is the total opposite of *Fight for rubble, where EA=off enables the defender to hold off superior enemy forces. With EA=On, the defender would have had absolutely no chances for succesful counter attacks, but would have slowly and surely lost the battle of attrition and lost the Victory locations to enemy.

Actually, the defender (Japanese, in my The Battle of Manila scenario) have excellent chances for successful counter attacks with EA = ON... provided the units do NOT utilize close assault, but instead rely on combined direct fire attacks and artillery barrages against the American platoons.

First, the classic EA=Off can be fun on certain scenarios, on that I agree with. Then again, EA=On can be absolute fun as well. It really depends on the scenario, be it a stock scenario or not. Many scenarios can be equally played with either option.

Agree 50% I don't find EA = ON to be "fun" - maybe necessary for balance purposes... but, that's my opinion and the nicety of having it as an optional rule. Again that's why I made the statement about EA being a "situational" optional rule.

I do not agree that a scenario needs necessarily be designed for EA=On, but I agree that it needs to have certain preconditions that allow for different tactics. Time / length may or may not be one of them.

I think you may be dancing around some terminology nuances? You mention "certain preconditions" that need to exist in a scenario (e.g. time / length and "map"). These preconditions must be designed into a scenario for it to be more acceptable to the use of EA. That's what I mean by a developer designing a scenario with EA in mind.

Secondly, EA=On does not require massive firepower or preparations. Just enough to cause a disruption or preferably kills on one of the defending units. After that, the odds on assault being successful are greatly improved.

All it requires is to have the units available. Not necessarily more turns, or anything like that.

I respectively have to disagree with your statements. Again, I think it is a situational condition. Ed and I played the WF "Unexpected" scenario with EA = ON. A lone Axis MG platoon (entrenched in a town hex) successfully beat off battalion-sized British forces that close assaulted it numerous times in a turn... combined with huge numbers of artillery barrages... for well over three quarters of the game. The Axis MG was also disrupted numerous times during the game. In this example, the use of EA ruined the game... primarily because the scenario was developed "pre-EA."

So, game turns / length, map and terrain, fortifications, and available forces, ALL impact and affect how EA will influence a specific scenario. The use of EA ALWAYS dramatically and fundamentally alters the play mechanics and game flow of any scenario in which it is utilized.

[Crossroads]

Actually, the defender (Japanese, in my The Battle of Manila scenario) have excellent chances for successful counter attacks with EA = ON... provided the units do NOT utilize close assault, but instead rely on combined direct fire attacks and artillery barrages against the American platoons.

This is interesting, I need to play that scenario! See, what you just described was the means a single Jap platoon could succesfully drive back a strong US force-mix, given the artillery and perhaps some accompanying direct fire would disrupt all US troops in a hex. Then you would just commit a single Jap platoon with an assault value to drive them backwards.

Again, I am not disagreeing with your experience. All I am saying is that I would need to play the scenario to be able to discuss it.

Agree 50% I don't find EA = ON to be "fun" - maybe necessary for balance purposes... but, that's my opinion and the nicety of having it as an optional rule. Again that's why I made the statement about EA being a "situational" optional rule.

That's quite OK. That's the beauty of optional rules. Don't like them? Then don't play with them

I think you may be dancing around some terminology nuances? You mention "certain preconditions" that need to exist in a scenario (e.g. time / length and "map"). These preconditions must be designed into a scenario for it to be more acceptable to the use of EA. That's what I mean by a developer designing a scenario with EA in mind.

My intent was the opposite to terminology nuances. I do not agree that - when speaking on a generic level - a statement such as "A scenario needs to be designed with EA in mind" is true. Lots of old stock scenarios play well with EA. Lots of them don't. And EA does not necessarily require longer scenarios either. imho.

I respectively have to disagree with your statements. Again, I think it is a situational condition. Ed and I played the WF "Unexpected" scenario with EA = ON. A lone Axis MG platoon (entrenched in a town hex) successfully beat off battalion-sized British forces that close assaulted it numerous times in a turn... combined with huge numbers of artillery barrages... for well over three quarters of the game. The Axis MG was also disrupted numerous times during the game. In this example, the use of EA ruined the game... primarily because the scenario was developed "pre-EA."

So, game turns / length, map and terrain, fortifications, and available forces, ALL impact and affect how EA will influence a specific scenario. The use of EA ALWAYS dramatically and fundamentally alters the play mechanics and game flow of any scenario in which it is utilized.

First of all, I agree that a game with EA=ON is fundamentally different from a game with EA=OFF. On that we agree. They very much require a different game plan.

I recall the MG example as well from some previous EA discussion here. I have never seen anything just like that, but I do not doubt it happened.

I do recall having spend some frustrating moments at bocage, trying to force a single ATG unit out of way with my leading units. I also recall seeing well developed pill boxes falling to a quick extreme assault. It goes both ways.

I remember doing an EA test with "Legend is Born" AAR. It showed some dramatic results with EA. See post #6 https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...?tid=57814

The EA test was further discussed here, see post #19 for my test: https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...d338663%29

[Askari19]

What's wrong with detailed analysis, historical fidelity, and complicated multi-factor algorithms in the game engine so long as you don't have to play with a pencil and a stack of charts in your hand? I judge them by the *effect* I see in the game. The original CS assault rule gives outcomes that look like pure BS to me, again and again. EA does not. 'Nuff said. Everyone to his opinion.

I was not throwing up a strawman. There was nothing wrong with Tobruk if you liked to roll dice?
The best part of computer games is that they do all the rolling.

It's not the "multifactor" algorithms, it's the one final morale roll that I object to. And, continue to object to.
I have seen more "BS" results with EA on than not on. I also thought there was nothing wrong with the original. Though, I play with EA on when called for by the scenario designer.

That said, I see we are polar opposites. And, yet, neither of us is "silly"?

HSL

Are we opinionated? Yes. Argumentative? Yes. Opposites? Probably not so much, if we were conversing ftf with mugs in hand.

I'm not saying EA is the perfect solution, only that it moved in the right direction, if perhaps a bit too far, and I prefer it.

Don't all combat resolution routines boil down to a critical die roll at some point? As long as the factors are weighted reasonably, and the outcomes over time appear reasonably distributed, I don't have a problem with where and how all the "die rolling" is done. I just tuck my head down, lean into the gale of blowing dice, and trudge forward.

I knew a $.05 psychologist named Lucy once, who insisted that we are altogether the product of prior traumas... Remarkable how I remember one of my very first HTH games, still learning the system, playing Michael in Tank Graveyard at Minsk. He took on a stacked, good order, high morale company of Panthers with about the same number of T34s. Achieved three disruptions with his fire (through the frontal arc) but no losses, surrounded, then finally assaulted and captured the whole company with one or two platoons. It was a formative experience for me; I think I still have PTSD. It was very professionally executed (I took notes) and larned me a lesson yes it did. I now know how to exploit the rule, but it still strikes me as gamey and unrealistic and I'm embarassed to use it, kind of like overrunning HQs with empty halftracks

My experience since then has shown a lot more unreasonable outcomes - is that better than "silly"? - from the original assault rules than from EA. HSL, I get that your sample set and your view of what's reasonable differs. Don't mean nothin'. I don't need to be right, and you can't prove me "wrong" nor vice versa. Nothing to bicker about.

[Kool Kat]

Actually, the defender (Japanese, in my The Battle of Manila scenario) have excellent chances for successful counter attacks with EA = ON... provided the units do NOT utilize close assault, but instead rely on combined direct fire attacks and artillery barrages against the American platoons.

This is interesting, I need to play that scenario! See, what you just described was the means a single Jap platoon could succesfully drive back a strong US force-mix, given the artillery and perhaps some accompanying direct fire would disrupt all US troops in a hex. Then you would just commit a single Jap platoon with an assault value to drive them backwards.

Petri - you misinterpret what I stated. I was referencing multiple Japanese platoons, in a single hex, utilizing combined direct fire attacks with artillery barrages to counter attack the American forces... not a single Japanese platoon successfully counter attacking against superior American units. Also, as I stated earlier, this was strictly indirect fire followed up with combined direct fire attacks. No close assaults were involved in these localized Japanese counter attacks.

That's quite OK. That's the beauty of optional rules. Don't like them? Then don't play with them

I think I'm safe to state that ALL CS players are thankful that Jason & Co listened to players' feedback and made EA an optional rule. I believe the original intent was to have EA "replace" the existing assault rules!

BTW... I've enjoyed this thread and want to thank participants for their civil and respectable posts!

[Crossroads]

Petri - you misinterpret what I stated. I was referencing multiple Japanese platoons, in a single hex, utilizing combined direct fire attacks with artillery barrages to counter attack the American forces... not a single Japanese platoon successfully counter attacking against superior American units. Also, as I stated earlier, this was strictly indirect fire followed up with combined direct fire attacks. No close assaults were involved in these localized Japanese counter attacks.

Cheers Mike, no, I was just unable to present my thoughts in a clear manner. As I haven't played the Manila scenario (which as you stated required EA=ON to balance it), I was just comparing it to *Rubble, where it was easy to resist the Brits via barraging the hexes in the front of defenders, disrupt the remaining unit(s) that were still not disrupted, then commit one of the defending platoons to an EA=OFF assault, which unevitably threw the attackers back.

I was just wondering would that not have been possible with Manila.

But, as I have not played it I will save my comments until I have!

Cheers all for a good discussion on my behalf as well

[PawelM]

:) panther example given by askari reminded me one how once I managed to capture tdisupted is-2 tanks using sdkf AA which has assault factor of 1. :)

I think this occurence of course with EA Off shows what a ridicule can one achieve. I personally prefer silliness of a singlr platoon withstanding assault from a batallion rather heavy tank captured by a truck with 40mm ish. AA gun :)

I suppose this is just personal prefernce what one consider as more ridiculous :)

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I now know how to exploit the rule, but it still strikes me as gamey and unrealistic and I'm embarassed to use it, kind of like overrunning HQs with empty halftracks

My experience since then has shown a lot more unreasonable outcomes - is that better than "silly"? - from the original assault rules than from EA. HSL, I get that your sample set and your view of what's reasonable differs. Don't mean nothin'. I don't need to be right, and you can't prove me "wrong" nor vice versa. Nothing to bicker about.

I hope we are not coming off as bickering. We just disagree based on our individual experiences.
Mine first was a lone German machine gun platoon that the game engine die rolls made into a superman machine gun platoon.
Yes, the Mg was in a town and in an IP. But, it was attacked over and over for about eight turns by an entire battalion of British infantry supported by artillery & engineers. Each turn it would be disrupted and disrupted and disrupted and disrupted and then assaulted multiple times from multiple hexes. Each turn the 15% die roll would save it and it would regain it's morale. By the ninth turn I had finally reduced it's strength enough for it to go away.
I honestly find that more unrealistic than a company of Panthers wiping out a company of T-34's.

And, although I do not know the exact situation (of your half track example) I do not see anything wrong with a platoon or two of armed half tracks overrunning a HQ. But, that is just me.
I think that HT's also are good to go overrunning AT guns too. Another of my experiences involved disrupted AT guns that could not succumb to being overrun by armor and bren carriers.



HSL

---

:) panther example given by askari reminded me one how once I managed to capture tdisupted is-2 tanks using sdkf AA which has assault factor of 1. :)

I think this occurence of course with EA Off shows what a ridicule can one achieve. I personally prefer silliness of a singlr platoon withstanding assault from a batallion rather heavy tank captured by a truck with 40mm ish. AA gun :)

I suppose this is just personal prefernce what one consider as more ridiculous :)

You would not have that happen if personal ROE's were in use?
I do not allow opponents to assault armor with half tracks unless accompanied by infantry and/or armor. And, if you read my personal ROE's you would need more than light armor to assault medium or heavy armor.

"Ridiculous" and "silly" are words I would avoid.
Because the game engine's flaws can be overcome with personal ROE's?
EA as part of the game engine cannot be overcome? You ride the vagary of the one die roll.

And, as I have always said, the game has lasted for many years beyond it's intended shelf life. Many more of those years were pre-EA.
I'll go to my dirt nap believing that EA was a mistake.



HSL

[PawelM]

HSL,
It was not a haltrack. It Was anti aircraft mobile german sdkfz. I have not seen anyone mentioning any restrictions assaulting with these. And anyway, who said it was a PBEM game and not local game aginst AI?

Ghosts of haftrack seem to be haunting every thread. They bound to come up even if I do not mention them :)