For Heaven's sake, let's have a discussion about the pro's and cons of v1.04 without reference to other peoples comments. I'm 57 years old and like to treat people as equal adults and respect each other as adults.
View your feelings about the version patch and for God's sake, stop attacking people for their' views, they maybe right, we maybe wrong.
People are dying for upholding the values of free speech, don't disrespect that in here.
Opening the forum for 'CONSTRUCTVE DISCUSSION'
regards
Peter
I love the graphics. I like the hidden AT guns and squads. I like that version 1.04 is supported.
I think the new extreme assault rules are too extreme and the old assault formula too easy. Kinda slams both but, really is my opinion.
I was dissappointed with the scenarios that were included (for various reasons). Some have maps full of glitches while others do not seem balanced under version 1.04. More scenarios designed for 1.04 would help?
I think the old version was more fun. I do not find the new version's extreme assault rules more "real" or fun. A new assault formula is needed?
RR
MrRoadrunner Wrote:I love the graphics. I like the hidden AT guns and squads. I like that version 1.04 is supported.
I think the new extreme assault rules are too extreme and the old assault formula too easy. Kinda slams both but, really is my opinion.
I was dissappointed with the scenarios that were included (for various reasons). Some have maps full of glitches while others do not seem balanced under version 1.04. More scenarios designed for 1.04 would help?
I think the old version was more fun. I do not find the new version's extreme assault rules more "real" or fun. A new assault formula is needed?
RR
Like RR, like the new graphics. I like the hidden A-T unit concept, but from observation, it seems to me that they remain hidden far more than 50%. The "hidden firing unit" concept should be extended to more units, if not all. But the percentage of units remaining hidden after firing should be dropped to around 25%-35%.
So far, thru two games completed and several more underway with extreme assault rules, plus experimentation with the AI, I don't see a reason to monkey with 1.04's assault rules. Personally, I haven't encountered any assault results that I would consider unreasonable. I have had some clear successes (smoked Russki bunker in village with 6 disrupted units falls to assault by 12-SPs of engineers), and some failures (a fatigued 4-SP Russian rifle platoon's assault against a disrupted 3-SP sdkfz 222 platoon in clear terrain, followed shortly by a 3-SP fatigued Russian rifle platoon - both assaults failed). What is clear under extreme assault rules is that disrupted units are not automatically going to give way under assault. This is a great achievement, and a significant improvement in realism over the way things were done. This change necessitates that the attacking player put much more care, thought and planning into his assaults. It is now even more important than before to wear down the defending unit with direct fire and artillery prior to the commitment of the assaulting units.
Not a huge fan of the switch to 5% chance of armor disablement by indirect fire. Would prefer to go back to 2.5%.
Won't play with variable visibility; don't consider it to be realistic. Really happy to have this as an option only.
Agree with the need for more H2H scenarios designed for 1.04.
LIKE
The new units, particularly the "building engineers."
The wider scope of the game, with virtually every pre war and wartime conflict ( speaking of WWII) now possible.
DISLIKE
The Variable visibility, which I think is unrealistic, and unnecessary. However, it is optional, and can therefore be disregarded.
The personal vendettas which appear to have risen since the release of JTCS, and have taken the place of rational discussion in many respects.
The attitude that will not countenance ANY criticism of the developments because such criticism is interpreted as a personal attack on the development team, or individual members thereof.
NO OPINION
Assault rules..havent played enough. I expect the controversy will, like the use of 1/2Ts and the meaning of balance, remain with us. I also wonder what effect they will have on the ...what..1300 or so existing scenarios. It cannot in my view be predicted, but the overall effect might be positive. Who can tell? .
REALLY GET A KICK OUT OF
The farcical bathtub navy and the fabulous non flying bombers. If I want to play a children's game or a fantasy game, I will buy one. This silly stuff doesn't belong here.
WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE
Some more eye candy, especially in the map area
Tunnels, and expanded vertical scale
Some tightening up of the OOB files, which have a few glitches
Continued addition of units not yet in the OOBs. In particular, WWI specific units could open up a new era for our game.
Maybe some permanent centralised site on the Forum Board to post ideas, wants etc, for the developers benefit and for all to see
Mature and knowledgeable consideration of the sea and air elements, the new ones as presented displaying a lack of understanding and knowledge of warfare in these environments.
Hi,
MUSST say first Thanks to the Dev and all Involved in developing the Game ;)
I like nearly all of the new 1.04 but many things need to re-thinked and better
implemented/balanced.
The VariableVisibility is a nice random task if all involved players agree with this,
but musst better interact with the user -> show a message have the visibility changed.
It is silly to look every round in the scenario information to get this.
Maybe a new static place who this stand on the screen,after the Smoke round maybe ...
Musst agree that i like more scenarios with 1.03+ units .. but i think that is coming ;)
The hidden guns is nice and it is not a bad idea to expand it to other units, but it musst
better reflect the terrain and the weather.
In a open snow terrain by sun burning a gunflash is maybe hidden but the black smoke will
be seen very god in the snowy landscape.In the other way, in a dense Jungle with heavy Rain
it wil nearly no visible ...
The same is going with the raised armor kill from the Arty .. it is IMHO not bad but need
rebalancing for heavy armored vehicles and for good/heavy armored vheclis moved most time
to disabled and not to killed.And disabled vehicles have in a campaing next scenario
most times available again.
The new naval stuff and flying bombers .. mmhh .. play harpoon and so i know
the limits of the naval simulation but it musst seen as a first step/try
and a chance to learn from this.The same is going with the bombers.
I think many can make better here but you musst hold in mind the limited
engine that is used, musst expanded in the time to reflect this better.
Cant say anything jet over new assault - have played the pre 1.03 not many and so i cant
realy compare both.ATM i am happy with it.
Regards
R-TEAM
Gents:
IMO - Ver. 1.04 :smoke:
Pros: 
New units and capabilities
Calvary can now fire while mounted.
Hidden anti-tank (50% chance to remain hidden when it fires)
Bridging engineers
Construction engineers
Training - infantry types with Green or Veteran designations
Order of Battle Additions and Scenarios
Expanded Russian, German and American OOBs
New scenarios - especially in RS
----------------------------------------------------
Cons: :(
Artillery vs. armor: 5% disable chance is too high - especially with small caliber (81mm and smaller) mortar rounds versus medium - heavy AFVs. Maybe 5% disable chance should be reserved for larger caliber artillery only? :chin:
Variable visability: Unrealistic and unbalances many scenarios - especially mid 1943 - 1945 Eastern Front scenarios. Leave it as an option.
Extreme assault: Maybe too "extreme"? :chin: My verdict is still out on this one. However, I do NOT want a return to disrupted units = automatic assault success.
BTW, I play all my PBeM games with extreme assault = ON.
mwest Wrote:----------------------------------------------------
Cons: :(
Artillery vs. armor: 5% disable chance is too high - especially with small caliber (81mm and smaller) mortar rounds versus medium - heavy AFVs. Maybe 5% disable chance should be reserved for larger caliber artillery only? :chin:
FULLY AGREE. Why not 1% for 105mm and below, which may be too high historically. I think back to the letter in the CS manuals.
Hello All,
Here are my
Likes:
New units
New unit capabilities
Hidden AT guns
Increased defensive values of trucks, bikes, mounted, etc
Order of battle expansions
More scenarios
Artillery verses armor 5% disable chance
Now I know many don't like this, but I would ask you to think about a "kill" of a tank in more ways than the tank actually being physically destroyed. Artillery hitting your tank or near your tank can cause the following effects all of which equal the tank being lost (ie 1sp lost) for the current battle: bailout of the crew, damage to the weapon systems, damage to the optics, damage to the radiator/engine compartment (very vulnerable to damage), a crew casualty (the tankers may have been unbuttoned at the time of the barrage), immobilized (maybe a track was thrown or the driver drove into an area the tank could not get out of), unlucky hit, etc...
Many of these effects are not "kills" that cause the tank to be scrap metal, but they are enough to remove the tank from play in the current scenario.
Now all these things are too minute to model in CS other than stating disabled. If I go back to my squad leader and miniature days I would say that the 5% is about right.
Dislikes:
Variable visability
Assault rules (1.02 too easy and 1.04 too hard)
The angst, infighting and bitterness that the changes have brought about to our community.
Thanx!
Hawk
Hi,
@Hawk
I dont say the 5% is to much for small or low protected Armored Vehcl.
And i dont say that the kill is unrealistic in therms of the Game engine
for this vheicles ... but for medium armored and more for heavy armored
Tanks, the static 5% is to much.
The small units can realy kill by arty, but the med/heavy become mainly
disabled and should in the next scenario in a campaign to 95% available again.
In the 5% it is to few reflect the armour of the unit and the arty size.
And very heavy tanks [like Tiger] musst IMHO in move to stuck in a suddenly
breched hole and so this is ATM full out of sight for the actual game engine.
[calculate by arty hits the AP the unit have spend in moving]
So my basic result is -> the 5% is good by small/medium vehicles with low
armor and good by medium armor tanks and BIG arty shell size ..
But inadequat by medium/heavy armor tanks and small shell size and by very heavy
tanks at all.
My oppinion ;)
R-TEAM
1.04 likes:
1. Assault Rules, because I mostly play the attacker VS the AI and the games are thus more challenging. It requires you to put more thought and fear into your mission, and it also helps with the controversial "6 minute per turn" game scale conception.
2. Variable visibility, because it adds an fun abstaction that represents the uncertainties of the battlefield including smoke, dust, and the adverse effects of fear and the pressures of combat. Sometimes it works for me, sometimes it works against me. Of course visibility per se does not change that quick in real life, that's not the point. Perhaps this feature should have been named something else like "variable cognitive ability" or something like that.
3. Most of the new restructuring of the OOBs, and most of the new unit types.
1.04 borderline dislikes:
1. Artillery vs armor. 5% would be fine but it just seems like the disable ratio is more than 1 for every 20 bombards. I can live with it just fine - war is hell.