EA or Not? That is the Question!

[Tide1]

Some may be against EA but once you use it you don't like to go back. But that's my humble opinion.

[Otto von Blotto]

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"?

Hi berto, I would be happy in the fullness of time to be pleasantly surprised on this and I may well be I will now you are on the team, but although I wish you well I won't be holding my breath.

The team at the time that imposed EA out of the blue with 1.03 patch fought tooth and nail to defend it when questions were asked and problems with it reported, finally it was grudging patched and made it optional with 1.04 but only once it was proved many times beyond doubt it was flawed and have stated many times publicly on this forum and on the matrix one that it isn't going to be looked at again.

As it hasn't been addressed in the last 5-6 years since 1.04 and to the best of my knowledge a change to it isn't in the forthcoming 1.05 update, you will perhaps forgive my dubious remark about it.

Don't get me wrong I do really appreciate all the work that Jason you and the rest of the development and support team put into this game.

As stated in my previous post I can play with or without it I just don't think either way is better or worse than the other.

Regards
Terry (Otto von Blotto)

[berto]

Hi berto, I would be happy in the fullness of time to be pleasantly surprised on this and I may well be I will now you are on the team, but although I wish you well I won't be holding my breath...

Times change, personnel change, attitudes change. All Things Made New.

[Crossroads]

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...

Snow. We need more variety of snow in the game.

[berto]

... it was proved many times beyond doubt it was flawed ...

"Proof" by anecdote?

Now (soon) that we (you) have the new Logging system, also the capability to do Automated Testing, and together with my several test systems, I will be able to run hundreds of test trials "proving" one thing or another.

Carefully designed test scenarios that I run by the hundreds might tell me that, on average, outcome A occurs X% of the time, outcome B occurs Y% of the time, outcome C Z% of the time. Hard statistical facts, not conjecture or "war stories".

I'm not prejudging the EA issue one way or the other. I'm not denying that A happens, or asserting that B does or doesn't happen. I'm just saying we don't really know, we don't know the relative frequency of A vs. B (vs. C), until we exhaustively test.

Careful coding doesn't prove anything, anecdote doesn't prove anything. The proof is in the testing.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Some may be against EA but once you use it you don't like to go back. But that's my humble opinion.

Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in.

I play with it. I don't like it. I went back. And, prefer to be back.

Though, I will still play it if that is the opponent request, and they are adamant about it.

Sorry. IMO, EA was (and still is) a bane upon this game. To me it was ill thought out, thrown in without testing, and was buggy. All the bugs in it was the cause of the inclusion of "optional" during the fix.

You made me "taste the bitterness" again.

HSL

[berto]

Snow. We need more variety of snow in the game.

What? We need More Cowbell.

[Tide1]

Some may be against EA but once you use it you don't like to go back. But that's my humble opinion.

Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in.

I play with it. I don't like it. I went back. And, prefer to be back.

Though, I will still play it if that is the opponent request, and they are adamant about it.

Sorry. IMO, EA was (and still is) a bane upon this game. To me it was ill thought out, thrown in without testing, and was buggy. All the bugs in it was the cause of the inclusion of "optional" during the fix.

You made me "taste the bitterness" again.

HSL

Sorry Ed I was looking at all the halftrack pictures I have..... I might post a bunch of them

[Schwerpunkt75]

Just my two cents:

For most small and medium-size scenarios, I'm not a fan of EA. It cuts down on maneuver as a game element, and emphasize firepower. It tends to reduce the role of assaults, ergo, it reduces the role of infantry. My experience with EA is that throws off the balance of most of the existing scenarios by giving the defending side a significant advantage. A defender with artillery and smoke in rubbled terrain with pillbox or bunker is virtually impregnable with EA turned on.

That said, with large scenarios, it can work with a lot of available firepower, or if the scenario was designed with EA in mind, it's a good addition to the game. I like having it as an available option for these scenarios.

Finally, I would like to see a third option, a middle-ground between EA and the legacy assault, whereby disrupted ATR platoons don't routinely brush aside full strength infantry platoons. That would be the ideal, IMO.

[Kool Kat]

Careful coding doesn't prove anything, anecdote doesn't prove anything. The proof is in the testing.

Hey Berto:

IMO two things need to happen for a final resolution of EA:

(1.) Testing it repeatably with the referenced programming tools

(2.) A willingness from Matrix to "reopen" the debate, listen to players, and be willing to look for compromise in the design and implementation of EA.

I am encouraged by all the recent programming work you and the other Matrix development team members have underway!

It would be fantastic, following the release of the 1.05 (2.0) patch that you would focus on EA, and release a future "special" EA patch