"Realism" vs "Playability"

Huib Versloot · 11-11-2008, 11:31 PM,

Valor Wrote:Just try playing "Ortona: Canadians Stalingrad"! With German spotter units (like some MG Pltns) very difficult to pull back due to assault rules, Axis can call in arty fire which kills Allied loaded infantry longer than designer assumed they would be able to. If you add 3 VP for every truck you will receive the answer. That would be about your examples.

I have played that one already in the Talonsoft days. Stopped it before it was finished because it needed work back then already. Too easy to blame the new rules now. The majority of existing scenarios has always been far from perfect so you need to come up with examples of scenarios that have been played often in the past and have a balanced win/loss record and high entertainment ratings.
I think these scenarios are all still OK, so I can't give any examples. People who claim that there is something wrong should come up with them.

There seems to be a little too much "hear say", assumptions and conclusions based on nothing around here lately. This doesn't attract the attention of the developers I'm afraid. Like I said before I have not heard any of the designers say their scns need a massive overhaul in 1.04 and why. If they did, then we would be able to point where the pain is, if there is any. Remember when the variable visibility was mandatory in 1.03. A lot of designers raised their voices almost immediately on the boards here. Now it's quiet.

Valor · (This post was last modified: 11-12-2008, 12:19 AM by Valor.)

Huib Wrote:I have played that one already in the Talonsoft days. Stopped it before it was finished because it needed work back then already. Too easy to blame the new rules now.

I agree that scenario was far from being perfect in the "old days". But the problem was, that "then" it was totally for Allied. "Now", just using the old files it's totally opposite, if that was not affected by the new rules and VP counting, then it must be Eek

me?

Quote:There seems to be a little too much "hear say", assumptions and conclusions based on nothing around here lately. This doesn't attract the attention of the developers I'm afraid. Like I said before I have not heard any of the designers say their scns need a massive overhaul in 1.04 and why.

I understand that designers design scenarios (and :bow: :bow: :bow: for they work they put in it), but those are players who actually play them.

As I understand the scenarios are designed for playing them, not just designing. And if players feel that there is something wrong we should listen what they want to say. We may not agree with them (I don't agree with all issues risen against 1.04), but we should let them speak... we should try to convince them, or ignore them if they are unconvertible, but we cannot forbade them to speak or try to kick their :censored: because we don't agree or don't like each other personally.

Best regards cheers

Slawek

British Tommy · (This post was last modified: 11-12-2008, 12:37 AM by British Tommy.)

Chuck10mtn Wrote:Some people are easier to please than others. If all you wanted was not to hear the disc run in your computer the congratulations you have reached the end. you may die a happy man.

chuck

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Kool Kat · 11-12-2008, 02:09 AM,

Valor Wrote:As I understand the scenarios are designed for playing them, not just designing. And if players feel that there is something wrong we should listen what they want to say. We may not agree with them (I don't agree with all issues risen against 1.04), but we should let them speak... we should try to convince them, or ignore them if they are unconvertible, but we cannot forbade them to speak or try to kick their :censored: because we don't agree or don't like each other personally.

Best regards

Slawek

I agree! :)

As I stated in another thread, let's keep an open mind on ver. 1.04 extreme assault rules and its impact (playability) on JTCS. :chin:

Document, send suspect game files and engage in healthy forum debate (no personal attacks, name calling, etc.) on JTCS game issues and concerns. :smoke:

Mike Abberton · 11-12-2008, 02:50 AM,

I think part of the problem with sending files in, is that, for me, it is not a case of one particular assault succeeding or not, it is a series of assaults over multiple turns which repeatedly fail that becomes the problem.

If I send only one turn, it is too easy to dismiss as "well, sometimes assaults fail. It happened in real life, too. Deal with it". And for the most part I can understand and accept that, if it was only one turn.

To fully document the effect of the extreme assault, I would have to save multiple files (no big deal admitedly), but I would also have to write down exactly who fired and who assaulted that hex for multiple turns in a row. Considering that I am usually fitting in turns when I can around household chores and honey-dos, I don't have the time. My choice, my loss, I know.

So, I'll admit that I will be one of the unhappy, unhelpful customers that the developers just don't want to hear from any more. And you won't. I don't plan to post in anymore 1.04, 5 or 6 wish list posts. I'd say I would vote with my wallet, but they already got my money.

Adios,
Mike

P.S. To head off the next "just don't use the extreme assault rules, dummy" post. I should state that, like Ed and others, I would prefer a more toned down extreme assault, not a return to disrupt, surround & capture. Obviously if I wanted D,S &C I would just go back to unclick the box.

Huib Versloot · 11-12-2008, 03:07 AM,

Valor Wrote:I agree that scenario was far from being perfect in the "old days". But the problem was, that "then" it was totally for Allied. "Now", just using the old files it's totally opposite, if that was not affected by the new rules and VP counting, then it must be me?

[

Slawek, Feel free to start a game against me that you think will demonstrate to me that the new assault rules make it too difficult to have a chance to win. I have to play the attacker ofcourse.
A few wishes: WF, not a Von Niemack scn, must be designed for H2H play, and it must be played more than 10 times in the past and have a more or less balanced win/loss ratio under the old rules.

Trying this out from both our perspectives will probably tell us more than the endless discussions on the board.

cheers

Huib

**Jason Petho** · 11-12-2008, 03:25 AM,

Mike Abberton Wrote:I think part of the problem with sending files in, is that, for me, it is not a case of one particular assault succeeding or not, it is a series of assaults over multiple turns which repeatedly fail that becomes the problem.

Forwarding the offending series of turns from your inbox with your password would remedy this.

Jason Petho

Von Earlmann · 11-12-2008, 06:49 AM,

Actually I think you can have both playability and realism (meaning a close simulation of what realistically might happen). I have run numerous campaigns and designed a few scenarios where if you watch closely you can actually see how things developed in the historical battles.I guess you have to define realism. For me it is trying to base a battle on history and giving the players a chance to choose different options. I mean if every scenario played out historically why bother to play them......you already know the outcome...the challenge lies in doing better(or as well as) the commanders did historically.....if you can't play that way I suspect you might be more interested in FPS games? CS is not an FPS game and man with the high powered comps and new units I suspect we can now recreate some enormous battles ........you gotta love that :-)

VE

We are only limited by our own imaginations
A mind is like a book.....it works best when it's open

Hawk Kriegsman · (This post was last modified: 11-12-2008, 06:57 AM by Hawk Kriegsman.)

I guess my question to Jason would be.

I have played more than 50,000 turns which comprised of games in
EF (all versions)
EF2 (all versions)
WF (all versions)
RS (all version)
DG (all versions)

and have conducted over 100,000 assaults.

Does not my practiced eye and experience count for anything if I tell people that I think 1.04 assaults are to difficult and favor the defender too much?

Keep in mind that I equally state that I think 1.02 assaults are to easy and favor the attacker too much?

Do I really need to send in a bunch of files?

I am not saying its broke. I am saying the pendulum has swung to far.

Thanx!

Hawk

**Jason Petho** · 11-12-2008, 07:03 AM,

Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:I guess my question to Jason would be.

I have played more than 50,000 turns which comprised of games in
EF (all versions)
EF2 (all versions)
WF (all versions)
RS (all version)
DG (all versions)

and have conducted over 100,000 assaults.

Does not my practiced eye and experience count for anything if I tell people that I think 1.04 assaults are to difficult and favor the defender too much?

Yes, I realize that. As have many of the veterans here. And of those 100,000 assaults I would imagine you were successful in 99,000+ of them.

Now, with the Optional Assault Rules, this is reduced to 60,000 - 70,000 victorious assaults. Tis a shock to the system, especially if you've been playing for 50,000 turns the same way.