Extreme assault?

[Otto von Blotto]

For me it’s a case of breaking the game to fix some scn’s that were unbalanced what’s the point of that?
Half the games I’m playing at the mo are still 1.02 as some my opponents prefer it that’s fine with me, true 1.02 was flawed and could have been improved on but the scn were made for it and you knew how it worked and where you stood, 1.04 is also flawed and the only justification is it makes badly made scn’s better and slows the game down, just saying adjust force mix doesn’t explain to me how to conduct them better and as I haven’t played Jason lately I haven’t had the benefit of 1 to 1 coaching on the new ways of doing it, what I have had is assault that haven’t worked when I thought they should and other that have when I thought they would fail and I can’t say how or why.?

I will happily go for a compromise infact when this whole assault change debacle came to light and we had a poll I wanted to scrap 1.03/1.04 and 1.02 and come up with something that works, I still do. Huib among others also has a valid point that there are too many no consequence results makes me feel my guys aren’t trying hard enough.

Just my .50p (inflation you know)

[Herr Straße Laufer]

<snip>

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.
<snip>

umbro

Thanks umbro.
I am in camp number two.
I am sure that extreme assault works as intended. Though, I have my doubts that it is to the percentage that they state (reference Hawk's fine posts).
If I need a spreadsheet to play and enjoy a game, I feel that it is not the game for me.

I agree that the "old way" does not have the same enjoyment than the new. But, the new would have driven me away from the game sooner. This game has lasted without support for so long, I do not think that it would have under extreme assault.
It lasted because it was fun to play and was a darned good simulation at that.

Peace out! :smoke:

RR

[Huib Versloot]

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.

Which scenario was that?

[Chuck10mtn]

[quote=Hawk Kriegsman]
[quote=Chuck10mtn

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.

I've only seen 1 map that has the amount of city that you are talking about. What I see is the assult happening all over the map. You have said and I will believe you about stalingrad, and it probably happened in every city from France to Stalingrad. The maps that are being used are not city most of then are country side, and it wasn't a popular tactics used for every attact on the way to Germany.

Chuck

[Krec]

How ever you want to state it, all these tactics require more time and/or units for the attacker. Most scenarios just have not been made for this. Surround disprted units should surrender after one or two turns. I cant tell you how frustrating the game has become. True you can mod scenarios to adjust, but most have not been and playing defence has never been easier. I understand in impved pos /trenches/ trees getting inf out can be tough , but in the open , exposed inf should be rolled over easily. That is not the norm here. You can place inf all over the place and they take forever to get rid of. It is actually better to place them in the open or on roads as to keep the armor from rollin. You cant even kill them outright , you have to shoot them one at a time with platoons of men/tanks. I believe disrupted inf in the open should be overun easliy, this is not the case now. The more i play this patch the more i dislike it. The idea was good but something just isn't right with it. Armor is not the rollin thunder it should be. Most my games seem to be more like WW1 trench warfare. Sorry for the rant i just am scratching head trying to figure if i should go back and play 1.02.

[Kool Kat]

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.

Which scenario was that?

The WF scenario was "Unexpected."

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/show...6&ladder=2

All Optional Rules = ON except Variable Visiblity and Armor Facing.

[Kool Kat]

How ever you want to state it, all these tactics require more time and/or units for the attacker. Most scenarios just have not been made for this. Surround disprted units should surrender after one or two turns. I cant tell you how frustrating the game has become. True you can mod scenarios to adjust, but most have not been and playing defence has never been easier. I understand in impved pos /trenches/ trees getting inf out can be tough , but in the open , exposed inf should be rolled over easily. That is not the norm here. You can place inf all over the place and they take forever to get rid of. It is actually better to place them in the open or on roads as to keep the armor from rollin. You cant even kill them outright , you have to shoot them one at a time with platoons of men/tanks. I believe disrupted inf in the open should be overun easliy, this is not the case now. The more i play this patch the more i dislike it. The idea was good but something just isn't right with it. Armor is not the rollin thunder it should be. Most my games seem to be more like WW1 trench warfare. Sorry for the rant i just am scratching head trying to figure if i should go back and play 1.02.

I've experienced the same situtations as what Krec describes in his post. It takes a LOT of units firing multiple times at infantry defending in open terrain, for the enemy units to suffer either a retreat or SP loss.

My solution? I'll just turn extreme assault = OFF and play with the ver. 1.02 assault rules until this gets worked out.

I'm NOT going to keep posting to these types of threads to have EA supporters repeatily tell me that "...everything is working as intended"... and "...shut up and learn to play."

See you guys on the battlefield! :smoke:

[Herr Straße Laufer]

My solution? I'll just turn extreme assault = OFF and play with the ver. 1.02 assault rules until this gets worked out.

I'm NOT going to keep posting to these types of threads to have EA supporters repeatily tell me that "...everything is working as intended"... and "...shut up and learn to play."

See you guys on the battlefield! :smoke:

Well said Mike. Guys like you were the heart and soul of both the game and club.
As I said, the game lasted so long in it's version 1.02 form because it was fun, easy to play, and simulated the history of the period.
Like my first example, of Avalon Hill changing the board game Squad Leader from a fun, easy to play game (not beer and pretzels - more ease of play in a tactical simulation), into the monstrosity they called Advanced Squad Leader. The only thing that was "advanced" was how slow the game played and how many noses where stuck in the rule book and not in playing, and enjoyment, of the game.

Like I said earlier, if I have to rely on a spread sheet (or magical incantation precisely recited) I would end up frustrated and bored. That, to me, does not sound like a fun game that I would want to play for another ten years. :chin:

That said, the version 1.04 assault rules do show that the "disrupt, surround, assault and overrun" methods of version 1.02 may have needed some tweaking?
But, the extreme assault rule did not tweak. It simply radically changed the game.
Who voted for a radical change?
Who asked for a radical change?
Who wanted a radical change?

I keep asking myself those questions and the answers I come up with are not satisfying. :(:censored:

RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

[quote=Hawk Kriegsman]
[quote=Chuck10mtn

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.

I've only seen 1 map that has the amount of city that you are talking about. What I see is the assult happening all over the map. You have said and I will believe you about stalingrad, and it probably happened in every city from France to Stalingrad. The maps that are being used are not city most of then are country side, and it wasn't a popular tactics used for every attact on the way to Germany.

Chuck

Actually in the game, too many vicotry hexes are located in town, building, forest, rough hexes often with the defender gaining trenches and IP's. Many situations do not allow for bi-pass and the attacker does find himself short of troops, and more so the right kinds of troops.
And, reading WWII tactics surround, disrupt, and assault (in the form of taking the ground and capturing prisoners) was the norm. Even bi-passed enemy units were later mopped up. How can that be accomplished within the parameters of the game/scenario situations?

It was always better to surround and capture the enemy to render him combat ineffective, than it was to simply direct fire at him to kill him off or make him retreat.

RR

[Huib Versloot]

The WF scenario was "Unexpected."

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/show...6&ladder=2

All Optional Rules = ON except Variable Visiblity and Armor Facing.

I looked at the scn file. It doesn't look to be a scn that is really much affected by EA. I'm not a big fan of bunkers or trenches in street hexes, but these are not positioned on top of objectives. More frustrating would seem the off map 25 pounders. To me these guns always seem rather ineffective at longer ranges.