1925frank Wrote:Huib's comments suggest the new rules will fundamentally change the game. Under the old rules, assaults played a dominant role. Under the new rules, assaults will play a minor role and will be used essentially only in emergencies. It won't be possible to herd units, and it won't be possible to grab large windfalls through assaults on stacks of disrupted units. It would require looking at the game quite differently. We'll find out whether it's better.
As long as Matrix makes the new rules optional, I don't begrudge Matrix trying to improve the assault system, and this dual-track approach may be the only way to test variations. The old rules are there for players who don't care to experiment, and the new rules are there for players who are willing to experiment. I don't think Matrix is saying everyone should like the results, although Matrix would be pleased if that were the result. Matrix may be starting at one extreme, but it can always back off if the feedback is negative. Ed may already know the new rules are unacceptable to him. But I'd be surprised if this is the last modification to the new rules.
1925frank,
I am O.K. with 50% of the current "impossible assault" rules. Even if it is an option I will most like choose it, as long as it is around 50%.
The thoughts of Matrix constantly tinkering with the game engine leaves me somewhat underwhelmed.
I think that the longevity of the game was based in people making mods and creating new scenarios. But, that is one players opinion.
I do not remember one person changing the game engine and having it universally accepted. Though, I could be wrong.
So, if Matrix will add new campaigns and scenarios, along with units, graphics, and other mods, it will go a long way to further the game.
There is a big difference to me between adding to ... and changing ... the game.
Ed
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
