So Then What Does One Do When........

[Herr Straße Laufer]

The point I think I was trying to make is that we have never had a perfectly set of balanced scenarios. Therefore, a change in the assault rules or other changes will not necessarily alter the sum total of balanced scenarios.

I slightly disagree. Scenario designers, then, made attempts at balance based on formulae they knew would make the scenario "close to balanced" and made for PBEM.
As for effecting the balance of balanced scenarios? I think the new assault rule definately does. Especially those scenarios of limited turns and having a lot of built up terrain/town. Factor in the morale of the units too! :)

Some that were unbalanced may become more balanced for example. If I only wanted to play perfectly balanced scenarios I would have a very limited set of scenarios to play from. Sometimes the fun is beating the odds, overcoming a critical situation etc. This might not mean winning all the time, it might mean doing the best with what you have got. It would be quite easy for any player to tweak the victory conditions if their sole concern was balance with a view to a potential victory.

Excellent points. Yes, some that were unbalanced become balanced. Especially some of those designed versus the AI.
I cannot accept that two players of relative equal ability playing an unbalanced scenario will have much fun. But, that is my personal opinion and I will not fault you for feeling different. I take no joy in beating an opponent of "lesser" ability in an unbalanced game.
Balancing scenarios are actually a bit harder now. Remember, the assault formula also contains random results that effect success or not. Over the course of a game, those random results can become a major factor in "tilting the balance". The old assault rules had a predictability that allowed a designer to get much closer to balance. I think the game engine "taking over" removes fun from the game.

I actually agree with you that some of the results from the new assault rules do not always produce plausible outcomes. I think what we had before was worse in terms of realism and simulation however.

Thus, my original request that 1.04 be looked at? Maybe the existing assault rules are so tough and random that they lose as much "realism" and "simulation" as the old? "Who's your Superman?" plays in my head. ;)
And, there are many who like the game as a ... "game"? A simulation that is a game?
Maybe there is a balance out there that does not include the "take it or leave it" choice we have now? :chin:

I thought it was really good of Matrix to listen to the concerns and to make the new rules optional.

I am unclear what your concern is now. It seem you are against any sort of change to what you regard as a classic game? Can you accept that there are many people who want to see change and who prepared to put up with teething problems to achieve that change?

I think they proved they listened when we got the fix for version 1.03.
If I was not clear in my concerns, forgive me. I tried to stick to my topical theme.
A) I only put forth that I believed the new assault rules were not the "toned down" ones that we were told. The random event portion does not help to bring realism or help the simulation.
B) That the increase in indirect artillery effectiveness versus armor produces more "unreal" results. It should have been more effective than the old but they seemed to have tweaked it and made it too strong.
C) And, that games scale is being ignored. If it is a simulation based on "realism", variable visibility would not have even been a thought. Nor should engineers that build bridges, etc.

You imply that all these things are teething problems?
That then assumes growth?
If so, a few are spending a lot of time to stifle the debate/questions?
Teething?
They also go a long way to justifying the changes by saying that "they" have created a "new game"?
If it is not John Tillers/Talonsoft/Matrix/Campaign Series, what is the new game they want us to play?

Just some thoughts. Please do not read my comments as if they have been done from anger. There is no anger.
More simply, it's frustrated curiosity that I am vocalizing. :smoke:



Ed