Assault Rules...Outcome

[1925frank]

By "won over," I mean to learn to genuinely like the new rules. I'm not talking grudgingly accepting the new rules after many harangues and much arm-twisting. I'm like you in that if it requires harangues and arm-twisting to be accepted, something has to be wrong with it. If it's good, it'll be recognized as such without harangues or arm-twisting. By making the new rules optional, I think Matrix has taken a step away from an arm-twisting or take-or-leave-it approach to the new rules.

On the other hand, the manner in which this change was made came across, at least to some of us, as force-feeding. Some of the anger is at the new rules, and some of the anger is at the manner in which they were sprung on the gaming community without any warning. I wouldn't have chosen to go through these additional frustrations in order to change the assault rules. I think Matrix is fighting two battles: (1) the new assault rules (not to mention the variable visibility rules) and (2) public relations with the gaming community.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Ed,
From what I read over the past month, I don't think you will like the 1.04 assault rules, unless you are prepared to adapt your style of play to some extent, like other veteran players have done who want to play with the new rules. 1.04 extreme assault option is 90% equal to what you've seen in 1.03. So if you think it's something in the middle you may end up dissapointed.

LOL! I was told I would hate the new rules before version 1.03 was dumped upon us. Now with a 90% change of what it is, this game may actually still suck, big time! I'm extremely sorry to hear that. It's just like being told I was not going to like version 1.03? Kinda disappointed that the "dogged people" did not listen.
Go team! Rah! :(
And, some wonder why I do not see any jokes in anything said by members of the team?

Assaults in 1.04 are intended only for those hexes that you really NEED to capture, and it is not a means to speed up the game, collect easy points etc.

Then playing the game is meaningless? Who are you (the team) to tell the player what hexes are really needed to be captured? Is this going to break down the game into a formulaic nightmare?
Specious at best?
Or, just stupid?
That will remain to be seen.
If a disrupted one point unit can hold up a battalion of infantry for five turns, because the hex is important, then 1.04 will be just as stupid as 1.03? Maybe more so because you all knew what the new rules did to the game?
And, I'm still being told that the assault rules do not change the way every game is played or balanced? :chin:

No, assaulting will COST time and effort and sometimes blood. But if you prepare them well, and pick the right units to execute them, there is less chance they will fail.

In this comment, I really do not care what the cost. If it is turns and not AP's then it may not be worth playing the game at all. Too bad, as I hoped the game would have been given something better. That you still want the game fundamentally changed in the face of the opposition is disturbing.

Sending out armor to capture infantry in urban areas, will not work, even if the infantry is disrupted, throw your own infantry in the melee with numerical superiority and you will likely score kills, or overrun the enemy.

I've not had the pleasure of using armor to capture urban areas. Nor, have I found the new rules to be a fair representation of "realistic" or historical. It's absolutely not my experience to date. Too bad the sway was kept nearer to where it was changed. You guys had your chance to really do some good?

I would recommend playing around a little when the patch is out, to see what works and what doesn't and you might be won over.

My recomendation is for the "team" to try harder to get it right. I will not be jumping through anyone's hoops because "they" want me to.
If I think the game is still ruined by what you all have previously done, and failed to make changes that will improve it, I will be more than happy to state it, over and over, until I am through with it altogether.
Won over? Don't flatter yourself. For me, it will be more accepting the degree to which you have changed and/or ruined the game itself?

If that is what you all want? Then have at it. :conf:

Ed

[Jason Petho]

Of course, if you feel that the 1.04 UPDATE assault rules will ruin the game, you will have the option of not using them at all and playing under the old 1.02 UPDATE rules.

Sounds like a win/win to me. Those who like them can play with them, those that don't can play with the old rules.

No different than armour facing, everyone has their preferences.

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I think Matrix is fighting two battles: (1) the new assault rules (not to mention the variable visibility rules) and (2) public relations with the gaming community.

Good thoughts 1925frank!

After reading Huib's post I now think that concerning your first comment "Matrix" does not care, and they are allowing the "team" to continue to ruin the game, while thinking it is improving it like they did Steel Panthers. In the second comment "Matrix" may just be swallowing the line of "added realism" and they care not if the publicity is bad as long as they get plenty of it?

Hell, what does Matrix care if I mail my disk back to them. They may see me as only one sheep who strayed from the flock? One lemming that did not jump off the cliff?
Who knows?

I'll wait to see what the patch does. Then I'll know if I should even care.

Ed

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Of course, if you feel that the 1.04 UPDATE assault rules will ruin the game, you will have the option of not using them at all and playing under the old 1.02 UPDATE rules.

Sounds like a win/win to me. Those who like them can play with them, those that don't can play with the old rules.

No different than armour facing, everyone has their preferences.

Jason Petho

And, what if I found that after using the 1.03 assault rules that the 1.02 rules may suck just as much and I hoped that we would have been given more than a 90% toned down version.

Just think of this. Every old scenario design and every new design using the new rules will be fundamentally different. That is my opinion and I think it will stand the test of time.
Don't bring up armor facing. That option does not fundamentally change the game.

I also firmly believe that you guys react to every comment but do not listen to what the players want anyway. I've had a month of that kind of evidence.

Ed

[Jason Petho]

And, what if I found that after using the 1.03 assault rules that the 1.02 rules may suck just as much and I hoped that we would have been given more than a 90% toned down version.

Try it first, the math is calculated differently. You may find it is 50% toned down. It is subjective.

Just think of this. Every old scenario design and every new design using the new rules will be fundamentally different. That is my opinion and I think it will stand the test of time.

It is merely stating the obvious, no?

Of course they will be different. Even designs by those that started designing scenarios back in the day have fundamentally different designs now.

There are all the tools necessary to design scenarios for each option.

Don't bring up armor facing. That option does not fundamentally change the game.

It is an option; no more, no less. And that is my point.

I also firmly believe that you guys react to every comment but do not listen to what the players want anyway. I've had a month of that kind of evidence.

One can't please everyone.

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

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.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Try it first, the math is calculated differently. You may find it is 50% toned down. It is subjective.

No where did I say I would not try it?
And, if you would have read Huib's post, it was he that said it was 90%?
50% I could handle. I was originally told 50%. Huib's number gave the implication that what I was told was not being followed through for the 1.04 patch.
You say 50%, then I'll take you at your word. If it plays to 90% then I'll take Huib at his word.

Just think of this. Every old scenario design and every new design using the new rules will be fundamentally different. That is my opinion and I think it will stand the test of time.

It is merely stating the obvious, no?

Of course they will be different. Even designs by those that started designing scenarios back in the day have fundamentally different designs now.

There are all the tools necessary to design scenarios for each option.

Did you not understand what I wrote?
Condescending as you may be, you were the one who in defending the new assault rules said that the game was not fundamentally changed because the original scenarios were designed for the version 1.03 type assault rules? When I stated that they will be changed due to the rules and balance would be an issue, we heard from Osiris that turns would be added to scenarios to balance them in version 1.03/1.04 assault rules.
Now you want to play with my words? And, try to go on an offshoot of designers who have changed their styles?
C'mon, I expect better.

Don't bring up armor facing. That option does not fundamentally change the game.

It is an option; no more, no less. And that is my point.

And, I said that the new assault rules fundamentally change the game, whereas the armor facing rules do not. "No more, no less."
If you use or do not use the armor facing the scenarios stay relatively the same? If you use optional "extreme assault" the scenarios will be fundamentally changed? Sheesh.

I also firmly believe that you guys react to every comment but do not listen to what the players want anyway. I've had a month of that kind of evidence.

One can't please everyone.

Yes, and "one" can be so condescending?

Ed

[Herr Straße Laufer]

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

[Jason Petho]

No where did I say I would not try it?
.

No where did you say you would?

I was merely suggesting to give it a whirl when they are available.

You say 50%, then I'll take you at your word. If it plays to 90% then I'll take Huib at his word.

I stated it was subjective. With the glitches fixed and the new math I believe you'll see a 50% difference.

Did you not understand what I wrote?

Obviously not.

Now you want to play with my words? And, try to go on an offshoot of designers who have changed their styles?
C'mon, I expect better.

That is how I interpreted your words and responded to that interpretation.

Don't bring up armor facing. That option does not fundamentally change the game.

To some it does.

Jason Petho