Anyone else ever had the game crash this way?

[Mike Abberton]

I agree that assaulting into mines is a little unrealistic since you are immune to the mines, but at least in that case the other player had to put his troops in the mined hex in the first place to be assaulted (it being very rare, if even possible, that units retreat from direct fire into a minefield). That is one of the reasons why I wouldn't generally, as the defender, place my units in mined hex, since I am just negating my own mines.

In the event of an attacker moving into a minefield, getting disrupted, and then the defender counter-attacking into the mined hex, it makes some sense that they wouldn't be affected by the mines since they probably know where the mines are placed. It could be considered that the field was likely even designed with attack lanes through the mines that the fielding side could use if desired.

On your second point, it is definitely not gamey to shoot a tank in the back after a retreat. If I am lucky enought to get a retreat on an enemy tank unit, what am I supposed to do, leave him alone because it isn't fair to shoot them in the back? That is merely a side effect of using the optional armor facing rule as it is currently implemented. If you don't like the side effect, don't use the rule. Just like the extreme assault rule, right? Or if you're on the Matrix team, you can just redesign the rule.

I don't typically have that much problem with wasting any prep since I typically perform my direct fire preparation before I set up the assaulting units. So I don't generally have the chance to retreat units after others are committed. On the rare occasions where I have retreated the defender out of a hex, I just cancel the assault and move on. It's probably why I never had the crash before.

So, I still consider it to be mostly gamey to circumvent op fire with a assault on noone. I'll admit, less so if it was a happy coincidence, but definitely in my mind if it is done intentionally with the hope that you can get the retreat and move into the hex for without op fire. The only redeeming factor would be that you still have to pay the extra 20 APs to assault I suppose. It could get really bad if you used this "technique" with a banzai attack though.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Extreme assault was on, yes.

I guess the terrain could not be factored in because there was no unit to base it on? Maybe that is where the crash comes from? The ultimate zero?

I don't think it is really gamey, as you have to make so much preparations for a potentially succesful assault. By the time the enemy unit retreats, there are many moves one would have done differently had you known the enemy would retreat. In reality it is also possible that an enemy has just retreated before an assault and the assault still takes place.

As long as you take your time you can circumvent game play?
Shooting to cause a retreat is one thing. Continuing a "non-assault" to prevent your unit from receiving opt fire is gamey.
In "reality"? You are kidding?
What is real about assaulting a hex to not receive fire. Wouldn't the assault be simply moving then?
Doing it to avoid opt fire is totally "unreal".
If Matrix wants to change assault to trigger opt fire and all units friendly and enemy are subject to the opt fire that would be another thing altogether, and a bit more "real"?

I think everybody would also prefer to assault into a minefield instead of walking into it, as the assault will assure no explosions are triggered.
Is that gamey?

Unoccupied by an enemy unit, yes, it is gamey. If you assault into a minefield to attack a unit which is there, it is not gamey. Matrix will have to change that to trigger the minefield and make it other than what currently exists as a result of that assault?

Is it gamey to make tanks retreat and then shoot them in the back when you have armor facing on? I think all of the players to some extent use the game engine's limitations to their advantage.

When both players agree to armor facing, that becomes part of the game. It is not gamey.
It is not even a good example of gamey in light of non-assaults into empty hexes to avoid opt fire. You just never liked armor facing effects. Thank goodness they are optional?

I will have another thing to discuss with my opponents prior to play. You are presumptuous to assume that "all players" take advantage of the game's limitations?
You would be the first that I have seen do it (or admit to doing it), thinking it is part of the way the game should be played, and then expecting us to go along with it.

I would lean as far as saying that assaulting into an empty hex is a "stunt method". I would not accept it as part of the game.

Similarily, until, or unless, you take armored facing out of the game (and ruin it for a lot of players in the process) shooting at the rear of a retreated unit is not a stunt, nor gamey.

RR

[Huib Versloot]

I don't see what is unreal about assaulting an empty hex when the assault was set up when the hex was still occupied. I think in real life many a building was assaulted only to find out the defenders had abandoned it a minute before.
In the game you happen to have a choice (at least in Talonsoft) go through with the assault (and lose extra action points) or cancel it or move in normally and receive possible op fire and have action points to fire back. All nothing wrong with that and my initial question was technical, not ethical.

Maybe it is realistic that assaults don't receive op fire. It is one of the benefits of assaulting and currently it is how the game works. The hex being empty is totally irrelevant because it was occupied when the assault was set up so therefore it cannot be gamey to carry out the assault.
I would suggest we keep the discussion limited to the technical side of the game crash.

[Mike Abberton]

Well sticking to the technical side, unfortunately I can't supply much input, since I have not used the GAMEY tactic that apparently causes it.

I wish I could be more help.

Signing off for now until someone needs help with a legitimate game issue.

[Von Earlmann]

assaulting into a known minefield is gamey

[umbro]

okay - technically:
This crash happens in JTCS with extreme assault ON or OFF. It does NOT happen in Talonsoft CS. Thus, one has to deduce that it was introduced when the extreme assault option was implemented. The most likely explanation is that when the assault is executed the target units list is empty and the code that considers the target simply falls off the end of the list.

gamey?:
My philosophy on questions of gameyness is whether or not there is a decent justification from a battlefield view. Regarding this example, the game is attempting to model simultaneous events in a linear fashion. Thus, there is some justification for assaulting a hex that becomes empty in the same manner as assaulting one that has enemy units in it. The problem then becomes what is the justification for assault not provoking opfire. This is harder to justify as the standard reason (there are friendlies about) simply does not hold water when the scale is considered and soldiers natures. It appears to me that the justification was based on the game engine rather than battlefield realities.

umbro

P.S. IMHO opfire should be triggered before the assault calculation is made and the results applied before the assault calculation. If this were the case then the gameyness question becomes moot.

P.P.S. The same should be true of assaulting into minefields (IMHO)...

[Huib Versloot]

. It appears to me that the justification was based on the game engine rather than battlefield realities.

Don't we all do that? Sorry to say but your own AARs are full with such considerations. It is part of mastering the game I think.

P.S. IMHO opfire should be triggered before the assault calculation is made and the results applied before the assault calculation. If this were the case then the gameyness question becomes moot.

P.P.S. The same should be true of assaulting into minefields (IMHO)...

I agree, it works that way in HPS PzC. The major drawback is that one can set up fake assaults to draw opfire.

I am amazed to see how people jump with enormous exaggeration on this supposedly gameyness of an occasion that presents itself once in 40 games or so.

Huib

[umbro]

. It appears to me that the justification was based on the game engine rather than battlefield realities.

Don't we all do that? Sorry to say but your own AARs are full with such considerations. It is part of mastering the game I think.

It is true that mastering the game requires knowledge of such quirks, I hope that I do not take advantage of too many that I cannot justify.:whis:

re: drawing opfire - IMHO opfire would only be triggered when the assault was actually performed rather than when it was set-up. As it is now there are so many ways to draw opfire - sneezing in a hex, for example.

umbro

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I don't see what is unreal about assaulting an empty hex when the assault was set up when the hex was still occupied. I think in real life many a building was assaulted only to find out the defenders had abandoned it a minute before.

Because it is no longer an assault when you do it?
It is technically MOVEMENT into an empty hex?

In the game you happen to have a choice (at least in Talonsoft) go through with the assault (and lose extra action points) or cancel it or move in normally and receive possible op fire and have action points to fire back. All nothing wrong with that and my initial question was technical, not ethical.

Technical smecknical. It is gamey. If that is an ethical puzzle for some, then so be it.
I was all for playing a game. I was not as much in the crowd that wanted to forsake playablility for what others believed was more realism?

Maybe it is realistic that assaults don't receive op fire. It is one of the benefits of assaulting and currently it is how the game works. The hex being empty is totally irrelevant because it was occupied when the assault was set up so therefore it cannot be gamey to carry out the assault.
I would suggest we keep the discussion limited to the technical side of the game crash.

Claiming the hex became vacant and therefore the assault was valid is not even logical, let alone "realistic". Logic would say that movement into a hex is movement and assaulting an enemy unit is an assault.
Technically, I think Umbro has it right. It is a product of the version 1.04 changes that were to add "realism" to assaults?

Now, I guess, we can see some benefit to extreme assault? It takes away the gaminess of assaulting into an empty hex? :smoke:

RR

[Huib Versloot]

Yes Ed,

I play very gamey all the time.

Why don't you just stay out of my threads, like I have promised to stay out of yours to Antoni.

Do you really think that when I start a thread, that I am one bit interested in what YOU think about it?
No, I am interested in everybody's opinion EXCEPT yours.

You should know that by now.

I can't imagine you really care about this issue to post so lengthy had it not been a question posted by me.

Huib