Assault Rule opinion poll

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Even now the votes for the "new" is more than twice those who voted for the old and/or compromise?

This is actually not true.

Votes for New = 24

Votes for Old = 9 and Votes for Comprimise = 25 for a total of 34.

A lot of the votes came early

As I look through the voting numbers in order of votes being cast I must say that this assuration is off base.

First 30 votes: Old 3, New 8, Optional 5, Comprrimise 13,
Something Else 1

In fact only 1 vote in the first 10 was for the new rules.

Last 30 votes: Old 2, New 9, Optional 11, Comprrimise 7,
Something Else 1

and I truly believe that those members did not actually "know" what the new assault rules brought. They simply wanted something that was not the "old" rules. ;)

Kind of anwarranted shot at the members here.

The voting shows that people voting for the new are evenly spread throughout the poll's timeline.

I am reasonably confident that votes were cast AFTER some playing around.

To all.

Post about the assault rules.

Play the ball not the man folks!

Thanx!

[dgk196]

Well,

I don't think I made the 'point' the way I intended..........

When I asked the '5 W's', it was to make a point that I don't know this information. And as such, I cannot say that the changes work or don't work! I can only say that they don't work for me. And as such I would have liked the option to use certain aspects of 1.03!

I don't know about anyone's motivations for doing whatever they did to 1.03. What would it matter? They addressed the problems as they saw them and did what they did. The fact that they are working on a 'fix' and addressing the bugs is okay with me. Not many companies would do that!

So, I say let them get on with what they're doing. The 'fix' is in (the works), and that works for me!

Dennis :)

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Votes for New = 24
Votes for Old = 9 and Votes for Comprimise = 25 for a total of 34.

Old = 9
New = 24
Compromise = 25

You cannot add the votes for compromise with the votes for the old rules. It is not the same vote. It would not be a realistic view of the data?
Votes for new over the old are almost three to one then?

As I look through the voting numbers in order of votes being cast I must say that this assuration is off base.

First 30 votes: Old 3, New 8, Optional 5, Comprrimise 13,
Something Else 1

In fact only 1 vote in the first 10 was for the new rules.

And, the point would be?

and I truly believe that those members did not actually "know" what the new assault rules brought. They simply wanted something that was not the "old" rules. ;)

Kind of anwarranted shot at the members here.

Not from my point of view. I still hear those that stick up for the new assault rules even after Matrix admitted that the close assault rules needed to be toned down.

The voting shows that people voting for the new are evenly spread throughout the poll's timeline.

Again, what does that have to do with things?

I am reasonably confident that votes were cast AFTER some playing around.

Some? As in how much?
I do not have your confidence. That is what I stated and I still believe. My statement was based on numerous PM's and e-mails, as well as reading what others have posted.

To all.

Post about the assault rules.

Play the ball not the man folks!

I have only voiced my opinion. I have yet to "take shots" at any individuals.
For anyone who thinks I am making a "big deal" out of "something trivial", I would suggest them getting a seashell, closing their eyes, and pretending they can hear the ocean.
And, there may be a fine line between knowing a truth and being perceived as arrogant? I just knew immediately that the close assault rules were not right. Which after many game turns, in many scenarios, against many opponents that premise was born out. That is a truth which is admitted by the developers. It's almost like arguing over a particular hex on a map? Ya just know it is not right. ;)

Yes, this is a thread on close assault. Sorry that I brought Variable Visibility into it. I thought I was using it as an example to illustrate the methodology of how Matrix approached the changes to the game, in version 1.03.
I'll be more careful to try to keep on the specific topic in the future.

:rolleyes: Sorry Dennis. I did mean to address your concerns and not to springboard into this offshoot. I do respect your opinion. I was looking more toward the entire CS community. If things are made optional then we all will have a choice? Good point! :smoke:

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Ed,

Go back and read my post. My answers go to each one of the statements that you made.

Thanx!

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I respectfully stand by my posts, thanks! :)

[Von Earlmann]

All I know for sure is the old assault rule flat out sucked........maybe the new one ain't perfect but at least it got us going in the direction of changing and will it appears be worked on until it is almost perfect..........and that will be close as we will ever get,,,,,,,,,but just leaving the old rule was absolutely the wrong thing to do..........it sucked...it sucked..it sucked........

By the way I didn't like the old rule :-)

VE

[Herr Straße Laufer]

By the way I didn't like the old rule :-)

VE

Me too! I cannot wait until they give us a patch to fix what is wrong. I hope it will be sooner than a year or two away. :smoke:

Ed

[Panther]

First, i played the game also with the old assault rules and it was often to easy for the attackers. Now the new assault rules gives the game a new face, but ... Gentlemen, it´s not a new game :rolleyes:! I like the NAR more than the old stuff.

The game is better now, more realistic ( i know i swear to some special comments, but i "played" the NAR also) and yes, with some errors! Well, some things do not run, but there are in work.

Spend time in the History of War and you will see there is never a warranty for a successful first attack. Often superior attackers got bloody noses against defenders who are ready to all. That´s life, not a game.

I´voted for the V1.03, i´m an active player and a member of the BB (especially modern Stuff).

The scenarios ... yes, nearly the most of them are uselessly for the V1.03!

Stefan

[Gevatter]

Generals,

I am not too sure whether this thread is already a dead horse or not... anyway, here´s my opinion about the assault rule changes.

First off I really like THE TENDENCY of the changes as they make it harder to win an assault, which was far too easy in the old 1.02.
BUT I am not one of those extremely offensive players that struggle from assault to assault. Which is an impressive tactic just btw, and I learned to adopt it from some of best players around here... Ed, Gary, do you read this ??? :rolleyes:
I do see that some of the changes have done more than neccessary, but I still hope that those things will be revised and that players will make thenselves familiar with the "new surrounding/environment" that we have right now.

Regards
Thomas aka Gevatter

[5 Leichte Div]

Officers :
I agree with Gevatter - the tendency of the changes is good. Some things were getting a little too predictable, tho someone also did say that such predictable events did make things rather intense - you had to be alert to guard against such calamity.
Do the change - tweak it some - attackers need to suffer some risk. Aggressive units did suffer some for their success. It slows the game down some - maybe better. Let's try it - get used to it - then we'll know.

Tom S. 5 Leichte Div