God Bless JTCS

[Montana Grizz]

I've only been playing the game H2H for two years, so I defer to the "old timers" in terms of any changes made in the game.

However, does it make the game less enjoyable because some of the rules or programming has changed?

If the rent on Park Place or Railroads is changed, wouldn't I just adapt to the change?

If it becomes more difficult to assault a hex, wouldn't I change my strategy?

However, if the changes are so significant and to alter the whole scenario in terms of reasonable tactics and strategy, then that is a different matter.

I do not have the experience, nor ability to answer my question; so I defer to my more learned opponents and mentors.

Pat

[Steelrain60]

For the most part, I really like the changes that have been implemented.

Haven't noticed any increase in op fire effectiveness.

Really like the element of unpredictability that 1.04 brings to assaults. Had 12 SPs of German infantry assault a 3-SP disrupted Russki SMG platoon in a bunker. The assault failed - definitely a change from the past. Despite my assault's failure, I have to say that the element of surprise introduced really made things entertaining. 1.04 has definitely made me more careful about conducting assaults, and about ensuring overwhelming firepower is present before conducting them.

The hidden fire of a-t guns and ATRs is a little annoying, especially cause it seems like these units stay hidden way more than 50% of the time. But I can live with this. In fact, I wonder if this shouldn't be expanded on in future releases.

Like the 5% disable rule for artillery vs. armor. This is actually realistic, I feel. While artillery may not have killed outright many armored vehicles, I get the impression that mobility or "armament" kills by artillery were pretty common.

Have not tried the variable visibility, and will likely not try it. Didn't like this rule, and I'm very glad that it was made optional for 1.04.

Overall, Jason et al, I'd give you guys a solid B+. Your efforts are much appreciated.

[simovitch]

For the most part I'm still able to kick ass on the AI but admittedly some scenarios in all 3 games have been whacked a bit out of balance by the new rules, which favor the defender overall.

[schnurbart]

The big rule changes extreme assault and built up area penalties mainly will change the time dynamic. In scenarios where the attacker is fat on time, this may not be such a problem. Built up areas can also add turns. i just played one where my opponent subjected himself to encirclement hoping that the village would protect him from my mass of armor and it almost worked for him do to the clock but i was able to prove being encircled still sucks. But with extreme assault on, i doubt very seriously i had a chance at all. Hidden At guns in my experience are a nuisance that could also add time to the equation. For some reason they always stay hidden from me:hissy:

[Herr Straße Laufer]

schnurbart,

Take the Allies in West Front's "Hell In Parroy". I think anyone would be hardpressed to beat the AI, let alone a human opponent. Plenty of defensible positions, AT guns, etc. ;)
I played it once against a Human Opponent and was making progress until my units were drained away and the time flew by.:rolleyes:

Or, do a ten to fifteen turn EF scenario originally designed with Soviet light AT's and ATR platoons in the mix?
Or, one of the von Neimack later war creations with German faust and schreck platoons.

They all may be slightly changed from the old version 1.02 experiences. ;)

Ed

[schnurbart]

schnurbart,

Take the Allies in West Front's "Hell In Parroy". I think anyone would be hardpressed to beat the AI, let alone a human opponent. Plenty of defensible positions, AT guns, etc. ;)
I played it once against a Human Opponent and was making progress until my units were drained away and the time flew by.:rolleyes:

Or, do a ten to fifteen turn EF scenario originally designed with Soviet light AT's and ATR platoons in the mix?
Or, one of the von Neimack later war creations with German faust and schreck platoons.

They all may be slightly changed from the old version 1.02 experiences. ;)

Ed

Yeah ok i start the wf scenario right now..send me a file if you want to play a H2H...*beep beep*

[simovitch]

Take the Allies in West Front's "Hell In Parroy". I think anyone would be hardpressed to beat the AI, let alone a human opponent. Plenty of defensible positions, AT guns, etc.

Ed, actually I was able to beat the German AI in that one with the 1.04 extreme assault rules. Also I beat the Russian AI in "Into the City" using 1.03 no less. Against a human I would have been creamed no doubt. As you can see from my current Holland Tourney score, I'm not much of a player.:P

[Herr Straße Laufer]

:thumbs_up: More power to you!
Did the AI move it's units out of the pillboxes and into the open?
I still have nightmares over that one. :rolleyes:

Ed

[schnurbart]

starting turn three in hell...i am not yet afraid of this position..i have lots of artillery and the ai as enemy. not much open for enemy to run in here

[Mike Abberton]

In concept, I like most of the 1.04 changes (except variable visibility). The problem I have experienced is that it does affect many of the existing, generally making the attacker's job much more difficult/time consuming.

Like Schnurbart said, in longer scenarios where the attacker has lots of time relative to his objectives, they probably add to the experience. In shorter scenarios (20-25 turns or less), or really any scenario where the attacker was under time pressure under the original rules, they can really affect the balance of the scenario. Unfortunately that's the type of scenario I prefer.

I am finding that you whereas before you looked for scenarios in the database where the win/loss ratio was even, you're now better off looking for scenarios where the attacker used to win 60-70 percent of the time to get a good game.