I realize that some of the 1.03 changes might prove significant in terms of the results of certain (perhaps all) scenario's, but doesn't it seem a little premature to draw conclusions based upon a few isolated experiences versus AI?
I don't see how one can draw a reasonable conclusion without data.
The results of a dozen attacks against a town inhabited with disrupted units is nothing like the results from a hundred attacks in terms of statistical importance.
Perhaps these changes might provide one-side or the other with some advantages here-to-fore not available to them, but will it change the over-all outcome of the contest?
Will scenario's with reported results of 124 axis - 118 allies - 42 draws become 128 axis - 200 allies and 12 draws?
I don't know and neither does anyone else.
Why don't we play a few games as a community and then draw some conclusions? Two months from now, we will know much more about the effects (if any) of the new patch.
Are the changes something that cannot be overcome by a change in tactics or are they so significant as to change the game completely?
There is a difference between 20 years of experience and 1 year of experience repeated 20 times.
I'm on no ones side; I just like the game and am willing to give this new patch a reasonable chance.
I may be playing 1.02 in a few months or enjoying the change?
Pat
If there is a middle ground that can be reached I can be satisfied.
The problem is that there has been a major pendulum swing and what once was is changed to something that is the opposite altogether.
We'll see what they try to do over at Matrix. I, for one, will not have this new stuff shoved down my troat.
Ed
Montana Grizz Wrote:I realize that some of the 1.03 changes might prove significant in terms of the results of certain (perhaps all) scenario's, but doesn't it seem a little premature to draw conclusions based upon a few isolated experiences versus AI?
I don't see how one can draw a reasonable conclusion without data.
Montana Grizz Wrote:Why don't we play a few games as a community and then draw some conclusions? Two months from now, we will know much more about the effects (if any) of the new patch.
Are the changes something that cannot be overcome by a change in tactics or are they so significant as to change the game completely?
There is a difference between 20 years of experience and 1 year of experience repeated 20 times.
Pat:
Thank you for echoing my feelings and (maybe others?) of the "silent majority" who enjoy playing CS and are willing to play and evaluate ver. 1.03 BEFORE passing judgment.
I agree that Matrix Games needs real hard data from both AI and human-based game play to better evaluate the game mechanics. This will take both detailed feedback and time to get more games completed under ver 1.03.
Already, there have been several bugs that have been identified and Matrix is working the fixes. IMHO that is a good step in the right direction.
IMO, > constructive feedback and < :hissy: fits are what is needed now.
Well put, Mike, but there are some elements of the change that are so poor they put our game, in my view, in a very poor light. I refer of course to the "naval" stuff, and the "airfield bombers." While acknowledging these do not have to be used, the mere presence of elements that have no resemblance to reality whatsoever I find...sad, I guess. I would like to hear from someone...anyone...a justification for the bomb-dropping capability of an aeroplane parked on an airfield.
Other new elements, particularly disrupt rules and variable visibility, are causing controversy, but not, I think over whether they are unrealistic. They have that quality, I believe, the argument is over the degree and the no-choice application. The effect of automatic issues on the huge bank of old scens can only be found out by trial.
Personally, I believe the visibility should be an optional issue. I am happy so far with the assault rules, perhaps with consideration for the DISRUPT to be hidden from the enemy.
K K Rossokolski Wrote:I would like to hear from someone...anyone...a justification for the bomb-dropping capability of an aeroplane parked on an airfield.
These were included for von Earlmann style campaigns, prior to the introduction of On-Map bombers.
One has to think outside of the box for their use. A player controls an airfield with airfield aircraft on them. While they control that airfield, they have air support available to them (via the indirect capabilities).
If the airfield is overrun, so is the players local air support.
Jason Petho
Jason Petho Wrote:K K Rossokolski Wrote:I would like to hear from someone...anyone...a justification for the bomb-dropping capability of an aeroplane parked on an airfield.
These were included for von Earlmann style campaigns, prior to the introduction of On-Map bombers.
One has to think outside of the box for their use. A player controls an airfield with airfield aircraft on them. While they control that airfield, they have air support available to them (via the indirect capabilities).
If the airfield is overrun, so is the players local air support.
Jason Petho
I can see where you are coming from, but there is such a degree of abstraction that it becomes bizarre ...a quality otherwise absent from the game*. I suggest that in real life, local air support is/was not necessarily lost if an airfield is overrun, destroyed or whatever. This attempt to give air support a more "hands on" quality has such an air of unreality that it lets the game down. There is also the question that the parked non-flying bomb shooters would not appear subject to enemy AA.
Whether an on game "working" airbase is desirable or necessary is highly debatable from a criterion of improving the CS product. You used the phrase "indirect capabilities" ......nothing indirect about WWII bombing....the bomber had to be airborne over the target!!! Bombers are
NOT flying artillery in this direct/indirect sense.
Direct fire only. To try and achieve your aim....an unnecessary one IMO....by using such a bizarre, contrived solution is a case of process once again triumphing over outcome. It makes a farce of the term 'simulation'.
The above said, the idea of an eye candy airfield full of juicy parked targets as an objective has some appeal. Nothing much easier to destroy than parked aircraft, even in revetments
Just ask Chuck.
*Except of course things like Maus, which were bizarre in the flesh.
I understand completely where you are coming from.
On the other hand, unless you are playing a von Earlmann Campaign with these included, you would rarely, if every, see them in an officially released scenario or LCG/DCG.
Jason Petho Wrote:I understand completely where you are coming from.
On the other hand, unless you are playing a von Earlmann Campaign with these included, you would rarely, if every, see them in an officially released scenario or LCG/DCG.
This may be so, but you miss the real point. The fact that I don't have to use something is a pretty weak argument for keeping it in the full-up shed. CS is a simulation. By definition, it should not incorporate elements that do not simulate. It simulates WWII-era land combat....within its limitations, it does this vey well indeed. That is why we play it. We dont play it for the River Plate scenario, but for the Invasion of Europe, or Kursk, or Bougainville. It quite adequately simulates seaborne elements supporting the land battle. It has some capability to simulate some air aspects, although there are weaknesses here.. You and your team have done terrific work improving the game, new countries, new units, filling capability gaps, much more. 99.99% of it is an honest copy of the real thing. You have in all but
ONE case remained faithful to a fundamental of simulation...... nothing happens in the simulator that doesn't happen in real life. But in real life, aeroplanes parked on airfields don't drop bombs on targets 10 miles away. You make a joke of the whole thing by including it.
As I see it, CS copies stuff pretty well, both in absolute and relative terms. . Nothing I can think of is egregiously bad....until the arrival of the bathtub navy. I say, as a career Naval professional, that this addition displays no understanding of naval affairs . It is so weak...the "submarine" is beyond parody.... that it laughs at the rest of the effort. Don't need it, so why have it. CS is about
LAND warfare, or rather the SIMULATION thereof.
K K Rossokolski Wrote:But in real life, aeroplanes parked on airfields don't drop bombs on targets 10 miles away. You make a joke of the whole thing by including it.
First thing you need to keep in mind these were included prior to the on map bombers being available, which would be more likely to be included in von Earlmann Campaign than anything.
Secondly; the planes on the airfield are a quick visual representation of the ground support facilities necessary to keep the bombers in the air. Ammunition supplies, fuel supplies, etc, etc.
As stated above, if you capture the airfield - or even bombard it with artillery, the ability of the airfield to maintain the bombers is no longer feasible, putting them out of action.
Finally; the von Earlmann Campaigns are typically out of the normal scope of the Campaign Series and these units are intended for those and those alone.
Jason Petho
Fine -the airfield bombers are good...let them replace the parked bombthrowers. We have no real visual representation of the logistics required for anything else, so your supply argument is hardly valid. Logistics are very much a notional element in CS, simply...simplistically....based on proximity to HQ. Maybe there are plans to unsimplify a very complex subject. Fine, but if so, the results on the screen MUST be something that mirrors reality...a truck convoy, for example must appear as just that. Fuel tankers need to go out to the tank units.
Returning to the bomb throwers. The CS engine is pretty old now...it may be that some things just cannot be reasonably simulated. I dont know whether CS can be made into a game that fully encompasses all aspects and environments of warfare, but my instincts tell me it can't. For example, how does one simulate the main, secondary, AA and torpedo armament of a heavy cruiser? What about damage control...the crew of a damaged warship don't just brew up and have a smoke, you know.
There is a real risk of increasing the chance of more of the bizarre, which will not, I believe, give our community much street cred in the gaming world.