EA or Not? That is the Question!

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

Not trying to on this subject, but...

After being on the receiving side of the "disperse-flank-overrun-eliminate" tactics of the "vanilla" assault rules - by an excellent opponent I might add and resulting in the elimination of at least two infantry companies during a current game - I've decided that I need to insist in the use of Extreme Assault (EA) in all my future CS games!

IMO, while I believe that EA is too "extreme" when defending units are in IP's and bunkers, but there are no other options?

I am wondering if other players have come to the same conclusion? How do others handle assaults in your matches?

Hopefully, the good folks at Matrix will look into a "less extreme" version of EA in future patch releases?

[Otto von Blotto]

Hi Mike, as we discussed in a recent e-mail that I have recreated here this is how I see it.

I tend to play a mixture of both EA and non EA games these days depending on what others prefer so swapping to a EA on only game in the future doesn't bother me and I will be happy to continue playing you that way.

I was not a fan of it when it was first released and I do still have some serious reservations about it but I can also see the disadvantages of a non EA game. While I find EA games can be slower moving, that can degenerate into little more than slogging matches that can become boring to play at times, I have seen them produce some very dubious results now and again, I agree the non EA system is also far from perfect and to choose between them is a dilemma, to me it is just another rule that I play or not as circumstances dictate.

Given a choice I think I would prefer a third way but the chances of that wish being realised is very slim indeed.

Regards
Terry (Otto von Blotto)

[Scud]

In my recent King of the Castle challenge vs Oberst, he opted for using EA to try to bolster the allied chances a little (Panzer's Forward). Frankly, it didn't make much difference. Neither of us had a problem over-running allied positions, especially when softening them up first, although at least once I forgot and made the mistake of assaulting with insufficient force.

I like playing with it off and using the old tricks, but I like it on for the added difficulty. Most of my opponents would still rather not use it. I'll go either way.

Dave

[Crossroads]

... and resulting in the elimination of at least two infantry companies during a current game...

Mike,

John Given just EAd a complete Soviet Coy of mine at ** Higher Ground H2H.

Meanwhile, I think I saw off two Soviet Coys - in the open again - with a series of EAs throwing them first back, then capturing them. That was in a team game, a couple of turns back.

Before that, I had lost several units to EAs commanded by my sector opponent, but let us not talk about those, hush is the word...

Disruption and low morale is very dangerous in the EA world too...

Life is not safe on these electronic battle fields - regardless the Optional Rules one chooses

[PawelM]

I can play both ways, but it is true that an efficient commander can overrun the opponent quickly without EA. But I suppose this is the idea in some scenarios. ...

[Kool Kat]

Gents:

I've also discovered instances in which EA is an absolute mandatory optional rule.

Take for example my Rising Sun "Battle of Manila" scenario.

It was originally designed to not use EA, but repeated play testing with the original assault rules resulted in the Americans overwhelming the defending Japanese forces each time. Completely unbalanced.

Insert EA. Suddenly, Japanese troops in bunkers and IPs held up the attacking GIs for several turns. Americans in turn, had to target these hexes with massive artillery barrages accompanied with point blank tank cannon fire and than followed up with multiple close assaults. Now the battle more closely resembled historically what the Americans faced when they entered the ruins of Manila - a stubborn and hard to eliminate enemy hunkered down within bunkers and IPs. If the Japanese could trade some terrain for time, make the attacking Americans pay for each hex gained, and launch selective counterattacks, they had a better chance of securing a win. So, in this instance, EA was a "good thing" even if there were sometimes that lone SP unit that would hold out for several turns against company-sized attacks!

[berto]

Given a choice I think I would prefer a third way but the chances of that wish being realised is very slim indeed.

How so? Why is this something we might not look into "fixing"?

[Kool Kat]

Given a choice I think I would prefer a third way but the chances of that wish being realised is very slim indeed.

How so? Why is this something we might not look into "fixing"?

Hey Berto:

You were not on the scene when EA was first unveiled. It was originally intended to be mandatory and replace the CS "vanilla" assault rules. Players divided themselves into two camps - pro EA or anti EA. It got pretty nasty with some heated threads. After a significant uproar from players, Matrix relented and made EA an optional rule. There were also debates on the need to make EA less "extreme" - kind of tone it down some, but nothing came of this input. "Officially," at least when EA was made an optional rule, it looked like Matrix would not revisit the EA rule again.

Hopefully, with you on board, maybe its time to re-examine EA and its impact on the CS battlefields?

[berto]

But I was on the scene, as a player. I remember the controversy well.

Speaking here unofficially, I would need to discuss this with my dev teammates of course, but: If we can, for example, have player-controlled animation speeds, not just a binary slow/fast, why couldn't we also have a "third way", indeed, a range of ways? Now that we have an active coder again (me), all things are possible. Well, many things are possible, within reason.

Not to get anybody's hopes up, but the days of "chances of that wish being realised is very slim indeed" are over, I think.

Now that I've raised possibilities, now that we've re-opened this can of worms, let's put the lid back on for a while. Now is not the time to rehash this debate. Not for me anyway. Got bigger fish to fry right now...

[Kool Kat]

Now that I've raised possibilities, now that we've re-opened this can of worms, let's put the lid back on for a while. Now is not the time to rehash this debate. Not for me anyway. Got bigger fish to fry right now...

Understand completely!

That Feb 14th deadline is looming up quickly... and I am very excited about the impending release of the 1.05 (2.0) patch!