Question on tactics: Assault, assault and assault

[5 Leichte Div]

Gentlemen - this assault and combat effects discussion has been quite the peppy discourse ! Opinions do indeed differ as to exactly just what is happening. Basically, CS plays like those old classic higher echelon battles - that would have adjacent units for combat - but has utilized some ranged-weapons fire for effects, too.
I also believe that assaults are the games' way to " simulate " some form of close quarter combat . ie. including short-range direct aimed fire by any ranged weapon, big or small, as well as the frantic sort of point blank fire and bayonet-knife fight - hit 'em with anything handy -- this is both a kill or be killed thing or perhaps, mercifully - the accepted surrender - you hope ( reality-wise ).
Now .. no doubt that there are some questionable results .. should assaults be costly all-around or are they too lop-sided in that an attacker doesn't suffer ? Well -- they do -- if you try assaulting an undisrupted unit , especially if it is in some cover ; bad news also if the defender is also more numerous .. and the attacker doesn't know this - or ignores that factor.
As to half-tracks and trucks, maybe a higher value should have been assigned , due to their strategic value ( vehicles gotta be important to an army .. a strictly foot army gets outclassed strategically ) , and thus making their loss significant. And I agree with those that feel that things can get too gamey -- otherwise it is anything goes for everybody , and we just live with it. ( It is negotiable .)
Another thing - tanks' close assaults - what happens here could also represent more than just only weapons' effects .. the losing defender has also become disoriented , confused , responds to slowly, if at all , and essentially panics and the tanks quit , crews might have bailed out , surrendered. But not always - sometimes both parties just plain kinda freeze .. nobody wants to get hurt trying , just yet.
Again ,the discrepancy is always when - " No effect " - happens. Oh, really !! You gotta be kidding me -- in my face and it's - nothing " ! ?
( -- I've had some romantic encounters like that -- but never mind -- got any coco butter ? )
And , as long as I'm talking .. the same goes for those much argued armor and cannon fire ratings. Me .. I think that early war values are OK, but some of the later war years are too effective at too long a range, or are under-rated armor-wise.
In sum , the frustration is that the CS game has limited tweakability to where one could " correct " the designers' values , but then you might well end up with too many versions. Is that a bad thing ? I can't say. Still .. whether you use all options or play it using the default values , -- Hey, boys and girls ... this GAME is a good one !

Says me --
Tom S. ( 5 Leichte Div )

[majog]

To be honest I think this discussion is a mute point unless Jason would even be open to changing anything. It has been programmed in this manner and people have been playing and designing scn's for it. While it is lovely to banter about the hypothetical, desired, or real world of looking at an assault it does not change what currently is.

The manner of assault that currently exists is what it is. More importantly we all exploit the strengths and weeknesses of each function system of play whether that be armor value, LOS, assaults, how to fire on retreating armor, opfire, etc. Chema started this trying to focus on a historical perspective of the use of that function but this is a game and that perspective does not work for the masses. Most people focus not on the historical accuracy of their play but rather how to win, which they should as it is a game. So what is, is and it works. If we want to discuss should it be changed and how that may be another thread.

[Mike Abberton]

You are right, of course. :)

A little vigorous debate nevery hurts though, as long as it all stays civil like this one did, and who knows what will happen as the CS Matrix Edition moves along and, hopefully, grows.

[Von Earlmann]

Yeah!.......but what about the halftracks :-)

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Half tracks!

:stir: Did someone say halftracks? :cheeky:

[RedDevil]

Yeah!.......but what about the halftracks :-)

All civility leaves the room when the Halftracks come out... :P

As I understand it, the original East Front system had much more variable assault results, but Talonsoft changed to the current system due to complaints over the unpredictability of assaults.

This has been on the list of changes or options for the Matrix rebirth.. I've been hoping this gets added since the word first came out about matrix's efforts.
the random-ness is a powerful change however, many regulars would have to reinvest in their tactics to adapt to such a calamity :) I think it would bring the level of the field down to the lucky bastards pool but in all respects.. what's a game without luck :stir:

[Cole]

Just bump up the VP awarded for half track and truck kills representing the scarcity of good transport and I would welcome my opponent scouting, assaulting, etc with his transport. They might run amok for a turn or so but I would start racking up the VP points

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Cole, that I just could not accept.
Trucks running around the enemy rear areas just to see a "?" would be the last time I'd play that opponent. No amount of points per truck could ease the pain. I'd let them declare their victory and move on. :2guns::hissy:

Personally I see it as gamey and silly. It's definately not fun for me.
I do think a higher price to pay will keep players in check. But, just the tactic of trucks running behind enemy lines, blocking roads or exit hexes, or using as "smoke" to block line of sight through a hex is just too much. :pullhair:

Am I an "historical play" nut .... ? No!

Am I a "my units can do that in the game and I'm going to do it" gamey nut ... ? No!

Maybe I'm just a "realistic but playable" nut?

The game is fun to play as is. Communicating early with your opponent can keep it fun. :smoke:

:chin: Now halftracks would take a discussion ... again! :stir:

[Cole]

Roadrunner,

All you said is good. Still think that transport needs higher VP values.

Even though this is probably one of the most active threads in CS I have found over the years that the great majority of folks I have played fall into the "realistic but playable" category.

In fact I can only recall one opponent that was out of line out of the many I played. I think a basic consensus has developed over the years.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

We agree? We really do.

I'd like to see the trucks raised. And, the non-armed halftracks (or halftrack transports as they have been called) also given higher values.
If I can get controversial I would ask that German/Axis halftracks and trucks be raised by three times their current points while leaving the Allies the same value. This would reflect the "numbers" manufactured and the value they were to each side. The Allies could replace their losses more readily while the Germans were still using horse drawn transport at the end of the war, because they did not have enough motorized? :eek1:

I'd even like to address the firepower given to German rifle platoons but, that has already been decided. ;)

And, we agree, in my over 900 games the "silly" players were relatively few. Though, I do not believe in consensus! :smoke:

And, lastly, it's Mr. RoadRunner ... :kill: