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

[umbro]

Adding turns to a scenario to make it balanced simply adds to the problem that VE points out.

You end up with a scenario database that includes the standard length with TS assault, standard length with 104 optional assault, extended length with TS assault, etc.

Perhaps the existing database can be used as is with an added note field where players can add information about version and options?

umbro

[umbro]

It seems to me that there are generally two types of scenario:
1) Competition, with roughly "even" forces.
2) Historical, with asymmetrical forces.

In both cases, good designers alter the objectives and victory conditions as best they can to produce a "balanced" scenario. Changing the way a fundamental of the game is executed necessarily effects the balance of all existing scenarios.

Arguing that players should simply "use proper tactics" has as much validity as arguing that folks who don't like the TS assaults "use the proper tactics" to defend against them. [On a side note, in all the games I played I don't remember losing more than a couple of units to SDC, but that might be the Alzheimers kicking in.]

Undeniably the 104 assault rules will slow attackers down and thus unbalance old scenarios. We have to assume that the balance of old scenarios is a bell curve and that the whole curve will move somewhat. True, some old unbalanced scenarios will now seem balanced but the majority will not.

However, the smart folks responsible for JTCS have provided a solution for us. The 104 assault rule is optional. For all old scenarios turn it off. For new scenarios with the official "designed for optional 104 assault logo" (or perhaps text in the scenario description saying so) turn it on (if you want).

The arty effectiveness rule has only a relatively small effect (and why are your tanks standing still anyway?)
The hidden shooter rule helps the defender a little but probably not enough to change scenario balance.
(I have to admit that I am basing the previous paragraph on the volume of noise created by 104 assault compared to the two changes above).

Finally, the one other rule change that really effects the balance of old scenarios (and thus really should have been optional) is the ability of regular engineers to build light bridges. You will have to add to your house rule list to address this one.

umbro

[Mike Abberton]

Umbro,

That was an excellent summation, matches my thoughts very closely. Thank you. :)

Huib,

When I say the balance is affected, I am thinking primarily of time-critical scenarios, because I tend to play the shorter ones (25 turns or less) where time limitations typically factor into the end result. For scenarios with less time pressure, I agree that the new rules will not affect balance much, if at all. I think I have been consistent in my posts on that point, but maybe not always clear.

Also, thank you for taking the time to adjust your existing scenarios to include more time for the attacker. :)

Mike

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Umbro,

That was an excellent summation, matches my thoughts very closely. Thank you. :)

Huib,

When I say the balance is affected, I am thinking primarily of time-critical scenarios, because I tend to play the shorter ones (25 turns or less) where time limitations typically factor into the end result. For scenarios with less time pressure, I agree that the new rules will not affect balance much, if at all. I think I have been consistent in my posts on that point, but maybe not always clear.

Also, thank you for taking the time to adjust your existing scenarios to include more time for the attacker. :)

Mike

Hi Mike,
I wholeheartedly agree with both your comments.

The rub will be trying to make old scenarios balanced using the new extreme assault rules. Like how many turns need be added? And, then knowing which ones were created that use the new assault rules?

And, specifically to Umbro, thanks for your input. I always considered you a "master of the game". Your AAR's were among the best.
For the record, I do not keep armor stationary, I drive them 'til they blow up! ;)
It was more a factor of walking into the barrage of anticipation that your opponent might lay out, or the unique way the AI seems to always find your troops when you play a campaign. Uncanny! :)



Ed

[Scud]

Well once again, I agree as well. Instead of Scud, just call me Fickle.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Well once again, I agree as well. Instead of Scud, just call me Fickle.

Mr. Fickle,

All ideas are worthy.
Don't hesitate to agree, disagree, or provide input. Every thought should count.
We all are trying to improve the game ... and preserve the games? :)



Ed

[Mike Abberton]

The rub will be trying to make old scenarios balanced using the new extreme assault rules. Like how many turns need be added? And, then knowing which ones were created that use the new assault rules?

Unfortunately, we would have to guesstimate the average amount to add and hope it fits the majority of scenarios. It wouldn't be perfect, but better than nothing, I think. Adding 10-15% sounds fairly reasonable for a lot of scenarios (so adding 2-3 turns for a 20 turner), it might be a sort of sliding scale based on the existing number of turns.

Mike

[Huib Versloot]

Adding turns to a scenario to make it balanced simply adds to the problem that VE points out.
umbro

I can only speak for my own designs but I try to keep them updated to be best playable with the latest update. In that sense looking at a logged result of let's say "Einsatz der Führer Grenadier Brigade" from 2004 is a record of an much different scenario than of the 2008 version. Not so much because the game has changed but because I've continuously updated the scenario over the years. For that same reason I will change the length of some scenarios and include the new versions in the next update and these will overwrite the old version. Seems the right way to go to me. Perhaps it makes previous statistics unreliable, so be it.
Old stock scenarios are orphins, as they don't have anyone to update them should that be necessary. I still think the majority is playable in the new version though (as far as they were before anyway; not all scns are strictly attacker-defender, certainly not most H2H scns and as far as playing AI is concerned, the new assault rules are not a bad thing if you play against AI)

[RedDevil]

I think the best point made thus far is the fact that it is optional to use the assault rules, but that seems to simply not be enough to satisfy...

the majority of grief opposing the new rules appears to be based on what one USED to be able to do and the speed of the game using the new rules.

The first and foremost thing to try and understand here is that this is really a new game.. the old game has been modified enough to qualify for new status. new options, new units, new rules, new EXE..

You must forget almost everything you've learned to do for the past 10 years in order to master this version successfully.
Sadly it appears to have repercussions on the old school boys here who cannot fathom that change is necessary to prolong the life of the existing game.

It was dead in the water support wise and not playable on new systems.

In order to produce a playable version of CS that was supported, it was necessary to improve it beyond the original parameters, other wise there was no money to be made and thus no need to make anything more out of it.

So if acceptance is made on this point, the the next section will be easier to understand.

in playing the 1.04 version with the suggested settings of using the assault variant
Old tactics do not work
S D C does not work
Quick strikes do not work
It is better to shoot now than attempting assaults and this might be another greiviance as well, but one must STOP and think here a moment

successful assaults are normally well thought out and planned and take lots of time
assaults made on the spur of the moment, without proper preparations will fail without a dousing of luck.

the old version simply allowed poor tactical decisions to succeed by giving assaults an automatic success rate IF one simply disrupted the enemy. How simple is that? sadly that's an absurd design flaw.

A disrupted enemy is a dangerous foe, there is no reasoning that says a disrupted unit cannot function when pressed by an attack. Command might be in tatters, but men faced with death or POW status can still and will perform to their maximum limits. This is some of our reasoning on the beta design team for these rules

Simply driving your units into the battle is a great recipe for disaster and the new CS version takes this seriously, beer and pretzel commanders need to realize this is above their pay scale and they need to put some effort into their strategies if they want to be winning games.

Assaulting bunkers and fortified positions was a major boo boo, many generals learned to bypass and let them starve out while maintaining pressure just enough to keep them from resting and regrouping.
The new version of CS takes these factors into consideration in order to separate it from the rest of the bunch. It is a war simulation, not an arcade game.

I personally feel most of the grief is based upon poor playing tactics and styles.
just to quote a few
"I just drive them in there"
"who has time to...."
"It's not balanced because..."

The easy version is still there for those who want it, the advanced version is where the meat of our efforts reside and where you'll be challenged to master a winning strategy EVERY time you play.

Please don't try to restrict changes, because it only limits the life span of this new version. Once it becomes stagnant, people stop buying and it all goes away.. Find your medium, get your game on, and when you feel up to a challenge flip the options switch and come see where the Iron Crosses grow.

[Scud]

I'm all for the new changes, and accept it as a new game. I like the new assault rules, though I think adjustments still need to be made; and I appreciate the fact the Matrix listened to the "old schoolers" and added the options. Unfortunately, the new game is more to the engine, not to the scenarios. Most of the scenarios are designed for the old version.

Personally I think all these things are just bumps in the road and will get ironed out as the designers in the community start playing with all the new features. Hope so anyway.