Reverse the patch.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

As I said in other post, I'm not glorifying the old system, that's why we have had all those house rules etc... I agree that assaults against disrupted units shouldn't be automatic...

I play few scenarios now and in some of them I don't see a big problem for now... as long as I'm defender :stir: but in other I see...

Some players concerned only about WF or EF don't see other problems that arose here. Just try now to assault pillbox packed with three or four units in. In WF and EF those are rarity... but in every RS sea landing scenario there are plenty of them :hissy:

If we want to have something changed, try to look whether does it affect something else? :chin:

Just my two cents

Slawek

Slawek, the simple solution may be not to play RS? ;)

[Ivan]

:rolleyes:

:chin: Too bad. Something in the middle ground may have been acceptable to all parties. :conf:

Silkster, could you say what something in the middle ground would be? We all know about the bugs that a few people have experienced (I haven't as yet). What changes would be acceptable to you in addition to fixing the bugs?

I've seen this multiple times where one strength point disrupted units are holding out against hundreds and hundreds of attackers who do combinations of shoots and assaults. I've even lost tank platoons that have assaulted with the infantry.

It is not the realism that I would want.

Now if it was Superman I might change my mind. ;)

If you have been experiencing this then I have every sympathy with your views. I have to say this has just not been my experience so far. In fact one opponent has more or less told me he hasn't even noticed any differences in the new assault rules and he's already made good progress with the scenario we are playing which requires many assaults on bunkers.

I suggest you send the save file of the game you experienced this with and send it to one of the Matrix guys so they can identify the problem.

The official line states that this is how it should work:

- The new assault routine runs through the casualty processing, then does an odds ratio melee resolution, then does a combined morale test of the defending stack. If the attacker has at least one non-disrupted unit, wins the melee resolution, and the defender fails his morale check, then the attackers win. For assault purpose only, disrupted units have their morale halved.
- Basically, anything the defender can do to increase his morale makes it harder for him to fail the morale test and thus successfully repel the attack The best thing to do when assaulting is ensure you're assaulting with overwhelming force to provide the victory you seek

Therefore the problem you have with the new rule is exactly the opposite of what is intended!

[Mr. Guberman]

RE above...I highly treasure Rising Sun. I do realize the statement, about why play RS, was made "tongue in cheek" (by the little smily face?), however...I think a gaming system that endeavors to recreate WWII from Platoon all of the way to Army(s) level should be as dynamic as possible.

By the statement referred to, might it mean that this is one of those gaming systems that is "ok to play in the west/east front...but just doesn't seem to work in the Pacific?". If that is the perceived oppinion that must surely describe the entire system as crap. We have all seen crap games. I do not believe that to be so about CS. I have 1.03 loaded, haven't played a lick, but for the first time, in a long time, I feel like dusting off the old maps of Sumatra and Java and having a go at completeing the old scens stored in my back pages.

I think shoot and scoot is crap, I think easy overruns are crap, I think (at this scale) armor facing is crap, I think an active VP counter is crap, I think a published D(isruption) is crap...all of that turns a scenario into an arcade game, no more, no less. "Spin the bottle is a game"...and a lot simpler, with possibly greater rewards. I think the best critique of any of my, admittedly, obscure and unplayable scens was the guy who said, paraphrasing "a very fun game to play, it was, although unwinnable by the Japanese and if you weren't watching the clock, but a nail biter". I play wargames for immersion.

A lot of the heartburn I'm hearing here on these boards lately seems to have less to do with constructive discussion and more to do with image and record (i.e. "it's too hard to win now"). To each his own. That is my own.

No offense intended, at all, sincerely, peace to all.

Cheers

Curt

[Valor]

The only thing I'm really afraid now is to revert/abandon all changes made in 1.03. That would be a bit too far...

I believe that corrections are needed there, just to avoid what Huib once said, that single HT was able to overrun artillery (however in my opinion it was already solved in previous patches... I remember myself trying to overrun Russian 122 howitzers... the steppes were filled with many wrecks of my ACs due to OpFire)

But as I said now, there is almost impossible to drive Japs from the pillboxes, bunkers and trenches...

I love that game and if everything is left as it is most of the RS scenarios will be unplayable...

And, Curt, I don't play only for winning, but winning is nice :smoke: What I mean, is that those scenarios are no longer fun as the only thing Japs have to do is just to close everyone in the pillboxes...

Best regards

Slawek

[Herr Straße Laufer]

:rolleyes:

:chin: Too bad. Something in the middle ground may have been acceptable to all parties. :conf:

Silkster, could you say what something in the middle ground would be? We all know about the bugs that a few people have experienced (I haven't as yet). What changes would be acceptable to you in addition to fixing the bugs?

I've seen this multiple times where one strength point disrupted units are holding out against hundreds and hundreds of attackers who do combinations of shoots and assaults. I've even lost tank platoons that have assaulted with the infantry.

It is not the realism that I would want.

Now if it was Superman I might change my mind. ;)

If you have been experiencing this then I have every sympathy with your views. I have to say this has just not been my experience so far. In fact one opponent has more or less told me he hasn't even noticed any differences in the new assault rules and he's already made good progress with the scenario we are playing which requires many assaults on bunkers.

I suggest you send the save file of the game you experienced this with and send it to one of the Matrix guys so they can identify the problem.

The official line states that this is how it should work:

- The new assault routine runs through the casualty processing, then does an odds ratio melee resolution, then does a combined morale test of the defending stack. If the attacker has at least one non-disrupted unit, wins the melee resolution, and the defender fails his morale check, then the attackers win. For assault purpose only, disrupted units have their morale halved.
- Basically, anything the defender can do to increase his morale makes it harder for him to fail the morale test and thus successfully repel the attack The best thing to do when assaulting is ensure you're assaulting with overwhelming force to provide the victory you seek
Therefore the problem you have with the new rule is exactly the opposite of what is intended!

LOL! I honestly do not have it in me to spend time exchanging files with Matrix to help them fix something that they neither should have to fix, and should have been spotted way before the release.
If it takes a Battalion of infantry and armor to take out a strength point of disrupted engineers, I just must miss the meaning in all of this? :chin:
Every game I have played since downloading the patch have been effected, changed, and altered because of it. :(

Some like it and some don't.

I'm quickly becoming one of the few who don't. Sobeit.

[Von Earlmann]

So far I have not seen any of the above mentioned things happen. Concerning the things mentioned; it has been said are a bug and will be fixed.

So, what is the real complaint? Apparently the rule was adjusted without debate or a vote. I can't argue that, but I will say from what I have seen of Matrix and the beta brigade is they are open to suggestions and willing to work to try and fix things as fast as possible.

So what is the real complaint?

von Earlmann

PS: I might not agree with what you say but, I will fight like hell for your right to say it.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I have 1.03 loaded, haven't played a lick, but for the first time, in a long time, I feel like dusting off the old maps of Sumatra and Java and having a go at completeing the old scens stored in my back pages.

As always Curt when you need playtest help with these scenarios I am there for your!

Thanx!

[Ivan]

Some like it and some don't.

I'm quickly becoming one of the few who don't. Sobeit.

You have made me laugh now, I have dribbled my coke. I think that goes down as one of the understatements of the year. Hat off to you:bow:

I'm sure we'll all agree on these changes one day. :whis:

[simovitch]

Just try now to assault pillbox packed with three or four units in. In WF and EF those are rarity... but in every RS sea landing scenario there are plenty of them

Since when was this an easy prospect? The melee element of assaults has not changed - the key to mastering the new assault rules is morale. Pillboxes, bunkers, trenches, do not have any effect on morale (but the other terrain does.)

Granted, a disrupted unit with a leader in an industrial hex will be next to impossible to dislodge by assault. Solution: don't assault them!

I have had to adjust my thought process when it comes to tactics in this game. The rules have not changed, but the combat resolution has. But it has forced me to re-read some basic rules concepts.

[Valor]

Since when was this an easy prospect? The melee element of assaults has not changed - the key to mastering the new assault rules is morale. Pillboxes, bunkers, trenches, do not have any effect on morale (but the other terrain does.)

In previous system the main problem was to get those bastards disrupted and then try to assault them out. Now assaulting is made much more difficult, while defenders have the same strong protection...

Granted, a disrupted unit with a leader in an industrial hex will be next to impossible to dislodge by assault. Solution: don't assault them!

So why so many RS scenarios have them included? :conf: And so many objectives are co-located with them? :chin:

Let me state it again I'm not again the assault modifications, just the opposite, it should be improved, but improving one thing always look at the others The changes really working in one game would not work in the other

Best regards

Slawek