Extreme assault?

[Krec]

I have to disagree with you here. You used to be able to wipe out a 6SP platoon of loaded trucks with a 1FP shot from a 1SP unit.

That is no longer the case, which is a good thing. The loaded transport being 100% destroyed when shot at went from 99% down about 70% with the other 30% being made up of retreats, a step loss (1 SP, 2SP, 3SP) or a no effect (lets face it your guys could miss)

I think the killing of unarmored transports is spot on!

Thanx!

Hawk


What about a 5sp armor unit missing the trucks, that is not spot on.

[Chuck10mtn]

Hawk Kriegsman Wrote:

Quote:
Explain that to those that never got the hang of it?

That's not hard to explain at all.

They were not marginally competent at the game.

The only people who I have ever seen complain about surround, disrupt assault had rather poor win / loss ratios and from my experiece with some of them directly were not very good at the game in any phase of it.

I guess this might explain why so many people come and go. I've nevered played the S D C method of play and don't think it represents the reality that people say they want. Why is it that some of the people want reality up to the point that it interfers with the way they play the game. There is no way that as many assults that happened before the 1.04 really did happen in WWII. So do you want reality and the 2 million units that go with it along with the more realist assult or do you want the game designed 200 different ways for each persons and the way they want to play. Jason has done a lot of hard work and I believe that he along with the rest of the gang working on the game are doing a good job. I don't understand all that Jason said about how they figured out the new assult combat tables but its a lot more time than I would ever be willing to, So Jason thanks for the work.
I'm not good at the game and I know it, I play it for fun you know something to keep me busy. The sun will rise tomorrow if you lose because you cannot assult your way across the battlefield. I've had it done to me and you know what I played that person a lot of times because its just a GAME. At least now I know that with a losing record I'm concidered incompetent and not marginally good in any phase of the game. Now I wonder why people don't stay and play games here

[Dan Caviness]

Hello fellow blitz'ers:

I always enjoy the passion you guys generate.:bow:
Hopefully Jason is on good terms with all those generating some of the passionate dialogue...or is that acidic vitriol burning my screen?
(joke)

I've found that once you learn a system, and conquer it, change is painful.
We all discovered at some point that you could disrupt, surround, and takeout. Or...if you didn't...you started losing a lot more. I first learned it at the hands of a Canadian PBEM partner, started using it myself, ruthlessly and with no remorse, and it became infamous in our circle as the "Canadian Takeout".

Man...it worked...it was awesome...and you could start pushing disrupted units around in a military "rugby match" or just clean take them out by circling the wagons. You could even herd them on top of each other with forced retreats....ride 'em cowboy....stack them up and take them all out clean with one assault.
We all started using it so fast the later gentlemen's rules concerning unloaded halftracks on assaults and trucks as surrounding units got born. All good.

It does become a bit predictable however. You can see it in the old 1.02 where players just systematically worked their way through your stack, disrupting them one at a time until it was time to end their misery. I have to say Jason saw that, and attempted to remedy it.
He did.

But....I also agree with some of the suggestions that perhaps a middle ground could be found...or simply an adjustment to the Extreme Variability as it stands. And man...I hope you boys are all old partners...some of you boys were the mean one's in school weren't you?... :kill:

I make these following points in a constructive way.
All are of course only my opinion:

1. Multiple assaults should still be rewarded with a near "100 percent" shot. If you have enough surrounding units to do it twice and have all defenders disrupted from the start...the chance should go up dramatically. Or, in cases where you assault a surrounded disrupted defender with multiple units from multiple directions you should have a "100 percent" chance of doing serious damage if you don't take them out. You may incur damage as well of course, but in such cases, you should at least put a serious hurt on the defenders almost every time.

This rewards the thoughtful player who sets up such a confrontation and is willing to pay the price (massing units adjacent a defender who is likely calling in SERIOUS artillery to teach you why you shouldn't be doing that) for his chance at the "Canadian Takeout".

2. Terrain and defensive modifications have to play a bigger part than they used to, and now with 1.04 they do. Guys...that was long overdue. But...it can be the most frustrating part of it. When your trying to take that critical bunker or pillbox that is spotting EVERYTHING and you know it's got to go and you've taken the pain....got shot up snuggling up...etc....it can REALLY hurt your entire game to miss that for one or even more turns. I'm playing Von Luck in a Normandy scenario at present. Every German bunker or pillbox I miss on those clifftops costs me lots of VPs for that extra turn or two.
I'd like to see (sorry Jason you write the algorithyms good luck on this one!) a reward to the player that has assaulted the same hex and units the turn before and failed. IE, end the poor slob's misery. If he failed the first turn, it's probably cost him dearly. If he musters up the mustard to do it again the following turn...and the defenders are not getting reinforced...which they won't if they are surrounded...his chance of succeeding on assault should go up.

3. I love the new clean overun when you use armor to assault MG units on open ground. (If 1.02 worked that way I never noticed) No surrounding and multiple direction assaults needed. Assault them, I believe disrupted or not, and they are gone. Over run. It works every time on MG units I know, not sure if some other variant infantry with good armor attack values go down so easily. (probably NOT need to find out) That part makes great sense in the game.

Open ground...infantry....here comes armor...your well and truly screwed. Unless of course your packing a six pack of panzerfausts or whatever. Note the overun is not the same as simply capturing them while surrounded though...they just get ground up into tread lubricant.
I like that part.:chin:

Jason needs to account for that tread lube by reducing the tank's movement cost the following turn...

All told I have come to grudgingly admire the new system.
I do believe some adjustments may be in order, but it is a step in the right direction.

Guys....IMHO...the old way was just too automatic and once you learned the steps that cha-cha was easy to dance all night long...


Regards to all,

Dan

[Jason Petho]

I make these following points in a constructive way.
All are of course only my opinion:

1. Multiple assaults should still be rewarded with a near "100 percent" shot. If you have enough surrounding units to do it twice and have all defenders disrupted from the start...the chance should go up dramatically. Or, in cases where you assault a surrounded disrupted defender with multiple units from multiple directions you should have a "100 percent" chance of doing serious damage if you don't take them out. You may incur damage as well of course, but in such cases, you should at least put a serious hurt on the defenders almost every time.

This rewards the thoughtful player who sets up such a confrontation and is willing to pay the price (massing units adjacent a defender who is likely calling in SERIOUS artillery to teach you why you shouldn't be doing that) for his chance at the "Canadian Takeout".

2. Terrain and defensive modifications have to play a bigger part than they used to, and now with 1.04 they do. Guys...that was long overdue. But...it can be the most frustrating part of it. When your trying to take that critical bunker or pillbox that is spotting EVERYTHING and you know it's got to go and you've taken the pain....got shot up snuggling up...etc....it can REALLY hurt your entire game to miss that for one or even more turns. I'm playing Von Luck in a Normandy scenario at present. Every German bunker or pillbox I miss on those clifftops costs me lots of VPs for that extra turn or two.
I'd like to see (sorry Jason you write the algorithyms good luck on this one!) a reward to the player that has assaulted the same hex and units the turn before and failed. IE, end the poor slob's misery. If he failed the first turn, it's probably cost him dearly. If he musters up the mustard to do it again the following turn...and the defenders are not getting reinforced...which they won't if they are surrounded...his chance of succeeding on assault should go up.

3. I love the new clean overun when you use armor to assault MG units on open ground. (If 1.02 worked that way I never noticed) No surrounding and multiple direction assaults needed. Assault them, I believe disrupted or not, and they are gone. Over run. It works every time on MG units I know, not sure if some other variant infantry with good armor attack values go down so easily. (probably NOT need to find out) That part makes great sense in the game.

Open ground...infantry....here comes armor...your well and truly screwed. Unless of course your packing a six pack of panzerfausts or whatever. Note the overun is not the same as simply capturing them while surrounded though...they just get ground up into tread lubricant.
I like that part.:chin:

Jason needs to account for that tread lube by reducing the tank's movement cost the following turn...

All told I have come to grudgingly admire the new system.
I do believe some adjustments may be in order, but it is a step in the right direction.

Guys....IMHO...the old way was just too automatic and once you learned the steps that cha-cha was easy to dance all night long...

Thanks, Dan.

This is productive.

Jason Petho

[Tiger 88]

Jason - you have a game file that we have been playing - Operation Sealine - right at your fingertips - with numerous unsuccessful EA's occrring each turn - example - you have a disrupted engineer and a rifel platoon held up in an oil refinery hex - holding off how many tank and infantry platoons for 15 turns now of mine - does anyone in their right mind think this would occur? I do not my friend.. and I don't think you do either.

I will tell you and everyone on this board - if you take away the option of allowing the player to turn the EA rules off or on - I will send a request today to David Heath for a full refund of my money! The EA rules today - are too one sided for EF and WF - meaning they are too hard. Especially when the defender is in extremely well defended terrains and I don't care what anyone else says - about "planning or coordinating" - I have done that for 15 turns in the example game I laid out - so do not bring that to us players who have been around the block or two with this long standing game!

[Kool Kat]

Saying the new rules reduce the game (at least the assault part) to just a dice roll is not fair obviously. Right now with EA there is far more skill needed in the game to be succesful than previously. This new skill however you have to demonstrate over the whole map and connected over a series of turns. There is far more planning and tactical vision involved with EA than without EA. In other words you have to be more creative and use more coherent plans now to be succesful. On a smaller level: if you want assaults to be succesful, you need to take more into account than just making sure the enemy is disrupted. So this also requires more skill than without EA.
With the old rules it was more a matter of doing the Surround, disrupt etc trick wherever you could. For this, just some unit handling skills and very short term planning are needed, I would hardly call these tactical skills.
I don't say EA doesn't need improvement but your criticism is too shortsighted to do anything with.
Huib

Hey Huib:

Hope you can explain something for me about opponent skill level and "effective" use of EA.

I recently played an opponent in a WF scenario with extreme assault on. Even though my opponent is a more experienced and skilled player (over 2K games under his belt) then me... he was unable to eliminate (or even reduce in strength!!) a lone German machine gun platoon defending in a trench. My opponent was attacking with a battalion-sized force, my unit was surrounded (with supply cut off) for 8 TURNS plus he was conducting artillery barrages on my hex. Nothing happened... except that the MG unit was able to recover from dispersion each turn and decimate his attacking troops. Likewise, I had other units in bunkers that were happy as clams, decimating my opponent's troops. BTW, these units also NEVER suffered a single strength point reduction, even when surrounded, and supply cut off for multiple turns.

Please explain to me what different tactics, or skill levels are required in the above scenario to make EA more effective?? :chin:

After I experienced that "realism," I swore off using extreme assault and will never play a game with that option on again. I'm simply not going to continue to be frustrated... and have to fight against both my opponent and the game engine.

So.. YES... extreme assault has MAJOR and NEGATIVE impacts in the game. It destroys game flow, and reduces a otherwise balanced match into a grinding, slug fest.

I agree that an "in between" version of extreme assault is needed... something between ver. 1.02 "easy" mode... and the "extreme" ver. 1.04 extreme assault.

Is this so hard for the CS game developers and Beta Brigade to understand... and impliment?

Yep, I'm against extreme assault.

[umbro]

Caveat: I am no great fan of the new assault, though anyone who has read any of my posts will not be surprised by that. I am probably also biased by the fact that I used to do quite well under the old rules. Furthermore, I hope to be of service to the development group for future releases.

However, it seems to me that we are conflating two different issues each of which has a very different path to being addressed.

1) The Extreme Assault does not work as described.
The path to a solution here is to submit a game file so that Jason et al can figure out what went wrong.

2) The Extreme Assault does not work as I would like it to.
The solution here will be a future release where folks ideas are used as the basis for a rule change, or not, as the developers decide. No files necessary.

My own position is that EA works as has been described, though personally I would like to see more description, especially of Wyatts special assault CRT (but that's because I like building spreadsheets).

I also think that it doesn't work as I would like, though I have to admit that the game "feels" better than rampant SDC of old, even though I still put that down to poor defence.

These threads are useful to put stakes in the ground to address 2) above, but if you have found a bug in the current EA, zip up that game file and send it off!

umbro

[Hawk Kriegsman]

What about a 5sp armor unit missing the trucks, that is not spot on.

Why not? The tanks could have missed the unit entirely. They were unlucky. Trucks have a defense of 3. Would you complain if it was a partisan unit with a defense of 3? Or maybe an armored unit with a defense of 3?

War is full of accounts where someone had the enemy in their sights and missed completely.

What was the range? Where the trucks moving? Had the armored unit moved?

There are hundereds of actual battlefield factors that are too minute to simulate in CS.

What you describe happens occasionally. If you play people who are careless with their trucks they will pay more often than not.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I guess this might explain why so many people come and go. I've nevered played the S D C method of play and don't think it represents the reality that people say they want. Why is it that some of the people want reality up to the point that it interfers with the way they play the game.

First off reality is subjective. I believe all people want a system the simulates reality and is playable at the same time.

There is no way that as many assults that happened before the 1.04 really did happen in WWII.

You would be incorrect. Go read up on Stalingrad. That was room by room and house by house, street by street block by block.

So do you want reality and the 2 million units that go with it along with the more realist assult or do you want the game designed 200 different ways for each persons and the way they want to play.

I think an increased number of options is just fine. It works very will with the HPS games. It can work here.

Jason has done a lot of hard work and I believe that he along with the rest of the gang working on the game are doing a good job. I don't understand all that Jason said about how they figured out the new assult combat tables but its a lot more time than I would ever be willing to, So Jason thanks for the work.

Agreed 100%.

I'm not good at the game and I know it, I play it for fun you know something to keep me busy. The sun will rise tomorrow if you lose because you cannot assult your way across the battlefield. I've had it done to me and you know what I played that person a lot of times because its just a GAME.

Agreed 100%

At least now I know that with a losing record I'm concidered incompetent and not marginally good in any phase of the game. Now I wonder why people don't stay and play games here

Really? A won loss record does not always indicate such a thing. Many quality players have a poor won loss record.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Jumbo]

Hello Players,

All though I haven't played to many games as late. I have had a chance to play a few games with Extreme Assault on. I have read all these threads & can agree to some a certain degree with both sides/views regarding the pro's and cons of extreme assault. IMO extreme assault as it is now does have a place in the game for scenarios that statistically (game reported results) show that scenario does highly favor the attacker playing with 1.02 assault rules. With extreme assault selected for those given scenarios, maybe it's possible to better balance that scenario (I am aware that the experience/skills of the given players playing that scenario is also a factor to be considered). With that, Those given scenarios that have previously favored the attacker to a high degree may now or possibly become more balanced and entertaining for both sides. Entertainment usually happens when both players feel they had an equal shot at success. On the flip side of that. I'm certain there are a large amount of scenarios that would require that extreme assault not be selected for the attacker to have any chance of success in that scenario, And be entertaining for both sides. Having a tool that can potentially better balance a previously unbalanced scenario is a good thing. I'm for keeping things as they are and for Matrix developers to consider adding a toned down version of extreme assault so as to find something in between that may possibly even make things that more realistic for the players. It appears that 1.02 assault has been to easy/automatic and extreme assault to hard. Both unrealistic in their own way. I don't believe having a toned down version would be to hard to create or to hard for players to absorb if they had the choice of possibly even three different assault rules. That might be a fantastic tool to have since we all know assaulting is a huge part of this game.

Warm Regards to all,

Jumbo