EA or Not? That is the Question!

[Crossroads]

(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

What would you like to see changed, though? A snippet from the Assault Explanation, from the Manuals folder (emphasis mine):

Essentially, when a hex full of units is attacked by an assaulting force, the game takes count of all the factors of the attacker vs all the factors in the defending stack. It also takes count of the number of counters (units) in the defending hex and evaluates them for various conditions like armor assaulting into an urban or open hex, fortifications, modifying terrain, etc. For our new processing I also had the software sum up the different morale values of the different units and derive an average based on the number of units in the defending stack. If any units in the stack are disrupted, their morale level is counted at a -3 of what is shown in the unit information box. This has the adverse effect of lowering the average morale of the stack and presents a realistic problem for the defender.

When the assault is executed, the software goes to the combat routines and conducts casualty assessment based largely on the same principles that govern shooting combat. Except in this case its defense and offense values are independent of armor facing.

When the casualty assessment is finished, the software conducts a die roll and compares it to an odds based combat results table that I developed. If the attacker wins the die roll an automatic -5 is applied to the defender's morale, simulating the fact that the attacker won and its effect on the defending unit’s morale. If the defender wins, his morale is increased by 3, again simulating an increase due to victory over the attacker. The game then does a morale check based on the defender's modified average morale. If the defender fails his morale check and there are undisrupted units in the attacking force, then the assault is successful and the defender is subject to the software's retreat processing. Otherwise, the defender wins and remains in his hex.

It should be noted at this point that I did not modify the retreat processing at all and that it is now and always has been identical to what the original designers put into the game. That being the case, it is still possible to surround and destroy units. As I said before, it has always been possible to do so, even in 1.03. Except now it is harder to do. The previous system had relied heavily on there being a 99% chance of defeating disrupted units. That is no longer the case. Disrupted units now have a fair chance of defending themselves and although it is still relatively easy to defeat them, the chance of doing so has slipped to between 60% and 70% of the time.

I do not have the knowledge of what goes inside the EA calculation in detail, but the above makes sense to me. I get good results with assaults often enough, and I for one am happy as how EA is currently employed.

I was tutored to PBEM by Hawk Kriegsman, he always insisted to play with it, and to this day I feel unsure when playing a human opponent without EA.

I assume there are three groups of players, those who prefer to stick to TS Assault Rules, those who prefer 1.03 Assault Rules (now optional), and those who would like to see "something in the middle".

I for one would not like to see any changes to EA as it is, so it would require a third option.

I guess (and this is a guess) one option to implement this "Medium Assault" routine would be to present a higher penalty for any disrupted units in the stack. Currently -3 of their true value, perhaps a more strict penalty would change it dramatically?

An easy thing to implement? I have no idea. Perhaps worth the effort if it would put the stop to the EA Wars. Then, we could retire the whole EA Optional Rule from the optional rules window, and would have a Menu item instead:

- Assault Rule
-- Easy (EA=Off)
-- Medium (Middle Ground)
-- Hard (EA=On)

My 0.02 obviously. And I want my three snow first!

[dawags]

My first take on EA was that I didn't like it.

However, as I've played different scenarios with it on and off, I have found that like any other rule, it is just a rule, and you have to adapt to how it affects the game, and alter your play accordingly.

As a rule, it has the capability to actually balance some games that are heavily favored to the attacker.

Also, as a rule, and it was noted above (Swerpunkt75), it can alter a game to make a defender impregnable.

Some existing stock scenarios that were or are unbalanced now have better balance. Some have less balance now with EA.

If the concept is to have a competitive game then the evaluation of the use of EA should be seriously considered. I have taken to posting up in notes, if I believe that EA should or should not be used as a rule...obviously just my opinion..

In general, if the rule is going to be addressed...I would like to see Assault actually have more damage applied...to both sides. Much like it is played in black powder games with melee. If you are going to commit to an assault, there should be associated damage due to the nature of that attack vs. standard fire. EA or not, you should not be able to just walk over large groups of defenders without some loss of your own resources that you have committed to the endeavor.

dawags

[berto]

In general, if the rule is going to be addressed...I would like to see Assault actually have more damage applied...to both sides. Much like it is played in black powder games with melee. If you are going to commit to an assault, there should be associated damage due to the nature of that attack vs. standard fire. EA or not, you should not be able to just walk over large groups of defenders without some loss of your own resources that you have committed to the endeavor.

+1

Speaking unofficially, as a player, of course.

[Otto von Blotto]

An easy thing to implement? I have no idea. Perhaps worth the effort if it would put the stop to the EA Wars. Then, we could retire the whole EA Optional Rule from the optional rules window, and would have a Menu item instead:

- Assault Rule
-- Easy (EA=Off)
-- Medium (Middle Ground)
-- Hard (EA=On)

My 0.02 obviously. And I want my three snow first!

I don't think equating EA off to easy level and EA on to hard one is very helpful, maybe just a ill judged choice of words. They are different and each have there own skill sets to play well.

[Von Earlmann]

Actually the original assault rules were ok and I would prefer to go back to them............what I don't like are automatic wins and automatic losses.......an assault should be based on simply the assault factor; terrain factor; and defense factor..............but, this crap of disrupting surrounding and automatically winning an assault is not only bogus it is for me completely BORING...........of course I'm just an old man so you don't want to pay much mind to me.

VE

[Crossroads]

Terry, I agree. Rule 'names', in three categories, is what I was attempting, ie. 1.0 Assault Rules, 1.03 Assault Rules, ... Or something similar.

I have not played TS disks for ages, was the Assault changed from TS to MCS? How was TS different?

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Hello All,

As Petri stated I only play with EA on. I have played new and older scenarios with it and found it has made all scenarios more enjoyable and realistic. They older scenarios work just fine IMHO with EA on.

If I did well on an older scenario prior to EA I did just as well with EA on. You just have to get used to how it works and adjust your tactics accordingly.

I was initially vehemently (and vocal) against EA. It was Jason Petho who tutored me in how to use EA effectively. Once I got the hang of it I found it to be vastly superior to the non-EA.

Does it some time take longer to remove an enemy? Yes it can. Case in point recently finished "Action In The Solomons". It took my Americans about 8 turns to remove a Japanese Engineer Platoon, MG platoon with a leader from a bunker hex. To me that makes sense.

Some of the underappreciated aspects of EA are (again IMHO):

1. The ability to assault defenders who are not disrupted. EA actually makes it easier to assault now as you do not have to disrupt everyone in a hex. High assault value units are much more valuable now (yes Russian SMG platoon with 4FP I am talking about you).

2. Armor in town, village and city hexes has its assault factor halved. This makes sense as you figure that vehicles are restricted to streets. Armor without infantry support in these hexes are vulnerable to assault.

3. Pillboxes can actually be assaulted and taken by combat engineers that have little anti-armor ability (basically every engineer unit that is not German, American or British). You can assault these pillboxes without having to disrupt the troops inside the pillbox. A perfect demonstration of this is in the scenario "Big Bully" by KKR. The Italians are attacking Albanians who are in a number of pillboxes. The Italians have very little ability to damage units in the pillboxes. The Italians have to use the combat engineers to assault the pillboxes do disrupt and reduce then capture the units inside. The scenario needs EA.

Anyways that is my take on EA. Best part it can be toggled on or off so it is a win-win for all.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Dan Caviness]

My 0.02 worth...

Like the Hawk, initially I didn't like EA. Over time I've come to realize, like dawags, it's just another way to play it and you adapt to the rules as they play the game. It's nice to see Erik actually detail some of the new "nuance" to EA, I believe this is the first time I've seen an explanation.

I do like the idea of spreading the damage around so the attacker takes some pain/more damage even when they successfully take the hex to get the job done. More realistic IMHO...

I would like to see it (the "new" EA details) broken down so I can continue to plan assaults with the skill, subtlety and elan' that my opponents have come to expect from my boys in the field...
So far...the only new facet of EA I've learned is it pays to utilize multiple assaults rather then throw all your eggs into one big push.

So...if the new rules could be detailed so we all have a chance to employ them...please...let's hear all about it. Erik?...educate us further please...

As for playing with it on or off, I find myself OK with letting the opponent make the call. If they have a strong preference, all good, we'll play it however they like.

My only concern is there are some older scenarios, like my Normandy and West Wall scenarios, where I built some really strong defensive positions to account for the old EA surround/disrupt/takeout cha cha cha... I specifically design with PBEM in mind and for advanced players who can assault you into infinity. You know, nut-buster maps! If you play them with EA, and have no idea of how the new rules can make assaults possible, those maps play really tough.

In the end, if the designer has a recommendation, I feel that is the best way to play it, since they know best how their scenario was laid out. If they don't...as above...my opponent can make the call.

Last, and I've said this before, I find it a great "equalizer" for unbalanced scenarios. If the defensive side loses most of the time, play it with EA on. Or vice versa.

OK, that was more like 0.05 worth...but I must say...it's nice to see everyone discussing this in a civilized fashion...including myself...

My new meds must be working...

[David G]

Well, I'm new here, but here's my decsion tree:

- if the scenario says specifically whether EA should be on or off, I will follow that
- if the scenario is silent as to EA on/off, then it's whatever my opponent wants
- if my opponent has no view, it's EA on (so I can learn it, if nothing else)

David

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Well, I'm new here, but here's my decsion tree:

- if the scenario says specifically whether EA should be on or off, I will follow that
- if the scenario is silent as to EA on/off, then it's whatever my opponent wants
- if my opponent has no view, it's EA on (so I can learn it, if nothing else)

David

Good post.
But, for one thing. Early designs were based on EA off. I do not agree with others that EA on or off does not make a difference. It does.

If it does not, then Matrix should simply remove it because it does not matter?

It's inclusion did make for divisiveness in the game community.

I really wanted a "moderate" EA that did not give options.
Instead we got the buggy "beta" "hard" version and no option. Which was defended, from the team, with insults and ridicule. Then we got the cleaned up version with the "opt in" button.

It is good to learn how to play with both.
But, I will not play EA on in balanced classic scenarios.
Though I will play classics that are not "balanced" if my opponent wants. I will always play with it on if the designer recommends it's use.

HSL