Extreme assault?

Dan Caviness · 04-24-2009, 10:34 PM,

I await your pleasure.

Regards,

Dan

Huib Versloot · 04-26-2009, 02:10 AM,

I wonder how much longer the current EA rules need to be evaluated. Some of my scenarios need to be changed to maintain playability. I don't actually want to base the changes on the current EA because I can't imagine the rules will stay like this.
IMO all the discussions have brought forward enough good ideas to patch it up once and for all.
Not doing anything might ensure that all the scenarios that are now in the making will also need tweaking after release when the rules get fixed. It's all extra work.

Herr Straße Laufer · 04-26-2009, 04:35 AM,

Alfons de Palfons Wrote:I wonder how much longer the current EA rules need to be evaluated. Some of my scenarios need to be changed to maintain playability. I don't actually want to base the changes on the current EA because I can't imagine the rules will stay like this.
IMO all the discussions have brought forward enough good ideas to patch it up once and for all.
Not doing anything might ensure that all the scenarios that are now in the making will also need tweaking after release when the rules get fixed. It's all extra work.

Herr Huib,

I totally agree! :thumbs_up:

RR

majog · 04-29-2009, 08:45 PM,

Fubar:

From what I have heard very few player like the new extreme assualt rules. They are definitely tough and to be successful require the opponent is totally surrounded and disrupted. I have been testing these in the new Matrix VN version we are working on and they add a bit more realism to the jungle combat and NVA battles. In WF/EF which was less of a gorilla type action I do not like them as I don't think they are representative of the era. On the plus side you can decide if you want to use them or not.

j

Von Earlmann · 04-29-2009, 09:41 PM,

It's a tough call.......most of the scenarios were written with the old rule in mind.....however I have had some players email me and say they enjoyed them with new rule and they worked fine..........keep on chooosing I guess

VE

Dan Caviness · 04-30-2009, 11:06 PM,

Good points guys.

Not sure if anyone likes the new EA rules as they are but I believe some of us would like to see it in a "toned down" version as we believe it does add some nice new variability to the game.

It's highly situational depending on the scenario.

The new rules combined with tough positions and maps like Omaha...your going to have to rewrite the victory conditions. Open maps...not as big a delta.

Anyway you slice it, all seem to be in agreement some adjustment is in order and hopefully our options won't continue to be "play 1.02 or 1.04".
Please don't remove that...for those who can't abide the new rules it's critical, but Jason, will there be a final version that includes a few of the valid and legitimate points raised on this forum and elsewhere?
(increased damage both sides, repeated credit over multiple turns, auto overun on units with no assault capability and/or movement, etc, etc...we've covered them in detail earlier on this forum)

If not, that's fine as well, but I will start to add a recommendation on all of my scenarios as to whether they are suitable for Extreme Assault or not.

Jason...just give "Dickens II" or "the Tractor Factories" a run with the new EA...
You'll be instantly impressed with how impossible those become to play with Extreme Assault.

Dan

**Jason Petho** · (This post was last modified: 05-02-2009, 12:33 AM by Jason Petho.)

Dan Caviness Wrote:Jason...just give "Dickens II" or "the Tractor Factories" a run with the new EA...
You'll be instantly impressed with how impossible those become to play with Extreme Assault.

Well, I tried Dickens II.

Here is the result:

[Image: !!dickens2_last_turn.jpg]

Imagine the extent of the German Victory using the normal assault rules?

Jason Petho

Huib Versloot · 05-01-2009, 11:22 PM,

A better example is "Panthers on Hell's Highway". It is easy to find the approximate release date of 1.03/1.04 in the result stats.
This scenario is now out of balance in favor of the Allies where previously it wasn't.
I find the "no results" outcome and the single morale check as Umbro pointed out, examples of weaknesses in the programming and I don't think it all works as intended so I cannot imagine it is going to stay that way.
Ofcourse it is not that difficult to balance the scenario according to the current rules, it is just that I can't imagine they are going to stay as they are now.
I don't care about difficulty, I just know that if the "no results" flaw is taken care of, it will feel like a "toned down" version so it would not be smart to adjust scenarios now but better to wait for the final EA.

Kool Kat · 05-01-2009, 11:43 PM,

Alfons de Palfons Wrote:I find the "no results" outcome and the single morale check as Umbro pointed out, examples of weaknesses in the programming and I don't think it all works as intended so I cannot imagine it is going to stay that way.

Alfons:

So... I'm trying to understand here. Instead of the "no results" outcome, you would advocate? And how would morale checks work in an "improved" / "toned down" EA version? :conf:

I'm trying to understand if what you and Umbro propose would be the "fix" required for EA. :chin:

Huib Versloot · 05-02-2009, 01:59 AM,

mwest Wrote:
Alfons de Palfons Wrote:I find the "no results" outcome and the single morale check as Umbro pointed out, examples of weaknesses in the programming and I don't think it all works as intended so I cannot imagine it is going to stay that way.

Alfons:

So... I'm trying to understand here. Instead of the "no results" outcome, you would advocate? And how would morale checks work in an "improved" / "toned down" EA version? :conf:

I'm trying to understand if what you and Umbro propose would be the "fix" required for EA. :chin:

Instead of 'no results' I mean more casualties on both sides. This means that an attacker might choose to take losses by assaulting but the attrition will bring him the hex in the end, even if he suffers far more losses than the defender over a series of assaults. This will feel like 'toned down' (I think) because in the end something happens when you assault.

The morale check is explained somewhat by Umbro on the Matrix boards. You might already have read that.

Under Extreme Assault rules there is a separate phase of the assault process. After all assault and counter-assault results have been applied there is a "Morale Saving Throw" for the defenders. The defenders morale is compared to a D10(-1) roll, if the roll is above the morale of the unit the unit fails and is forced to retreat, otherwise it stays in place. The units' morale benefits from terrain and leaders and is further modified positively or negatively depending upon whether it "won" the assault or not. Whether it "won" the assault is determined according to an unpublished table.