• Havoc
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Poll: What Assault Rules do you want.
This poll is closed.
The old 1.02 version
10.98%
9 10.98%
The new 1.03 version
30.49%
25 30.49%
An option to use either
21.95%
18 21.95%
A comprimise between the two
34.15%
28 34.15%
Something completely different.
2.44%
2 2.44%
Total 82 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Assault Rule opinion poll
07-23-2008, 06:11 AM,
#21
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll
CS centurion vote for 1.03 way...
Quote this message in a reply
07-28-2008, 08:43 PM,
#22
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll
I see there is a fair amount of support for "A compromise between the two versions".............only problems I now see are

1. I haven't heard any real suggestions for what might be changed except to completely change it back to 1.02

2. The only true compromise will leave both sides unhappy and most likely will in the end ruin the game.

I'm not making suggestions here..just pointing out a few facts.

"If you don't knowe a better way........best to keep quiet"

I don't know of a better way to fix the assault rule other than to eliminate the bugs.

von Earlmann
"The secret to success is not just doing the things you enjoy but rather enjoying everything that you do."
Quote this message in a reply
07-29-2008, 04:40 AM,
#23
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll
Think the compromise would be an optional button in the game if possible where you could say ok ill play you at 103 assault rules or leave it of for 102.Think this is possible that way everybody would be happy.IE Except for certain scenarios like your's Earl where everyone had to stick to a certain rule.
Quote this message in a reply
07-29-2008, 12:19 PM,
#24
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll
Hey Earl... I'm in the last third of your "Cauldron of Fire" scenario. Any suggestions how the hell I'm suppose to dig these Bolsheviks out of bunkers and entrenchments under the new assault rules??? Cry

And please don't say concentrate... not with a Soviet Artillery Division on the map. :boom3:

Do you think that these new assault rules may have a serious unbalancing effect on more than a few scenarios? Truth be told I already mentioned to my opponent that I thought if we had started this scenario in 1.03 my poor Landsers would probably still be trying to force the initial line while getting the snot artilleried out of 'em next to bunkers and entrenchments.
Quote this message in a reply
07-29-2008, 06:12 PM,
#25
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll
XLVIII Pz. Korp Wrote:Hey Earl... I'm in the last third of your "Cauldron of Fire" scenario. I thought if we had started this scenario in 1.03 my poor Landsers would probably still be trying to force the initial line while getting the snot artilleried out of 'em next to bunkers and entrenchments.

Gary,
That's about what happened in the real battle.......truth be told I have had to make adjustments in most of my scenarios to compensate for the old assault rules etc. It will be nice not to have to do that anymore. I suspect the vulnerability of those ferdinands to infantry will finally actually happen.....being as they have an assault value of one and no longer have to be disrupted to be assaulted....oh yes they got the dog snot knocked out of them here.....as did the rest of the German attackers.....

I designed this scenario just to see if I could, and with most of my Kursk scenarios it shows the Germans killed a lot of Russians but came no where winning the battle of Kursk as some revisionists would have us believe.

I actually never figured this scenario would be very popular just because of the name.....it truly was "The Cauldron of Fire" :-)

Earl
"The secret to success is not just doing the things you enjoy but rather enjoying everything that you do."
Quote this message in a reply
07-29-2008, 06:13 PM,
#26
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll
Von Luck Wrote:Think the compromise would be an optional button in the game if possible where you could say ok ill play you at 103 assault rules or leave it of for 102.

John,
That's not a compromise. It's one of the options being voted on.

Earl
"The secret to success is not just doing the things you enjoy but rather enjoying everything that you do."
Quote this message in a reply
07-29-2008, 06:17 PM,
#27
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll
XLVIII Pz. Korp Wrote:Hey Earl... I'm in the last third of your "Cauldron of Fire" scenario. Any suggestions how the hell I'm suppose to dig these Bolsheviks out of bunkers and entrenchments

I suspect Model and his commanders were asking the same question :whis:

Earl
"The secret to success is not just doing the things you enjoy but rather enjoying everything that you do."
Quote this message in a reply
07-29-2008, 06:37 PM,
#28
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll
Being a new player I voted for the new 1.03 rules.

It adds a nice FOW to the game. Its no longer routine to surround disrupted troops and instantly capture them. It also levels the playing field out for me a bit as everyone is getting used to the new rules.

So thats my opinion... not going to get into any arguments over it though as I dont have enough knowledge as to the finer workings of the engine.
Quote this message in a reply
07-30-2008, 01:41 AM,
#29
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll
I am currently playing and EF scenario entitled "Where Iron Crosses Grow" ... or something like that. I, as the Russians, am having some unexpected success taking German bunkers. Drop arty, pound with tanks, get the defender disrupted and reduced, and assault. Some assaults fail, and some assaults succeed. It feels right to me.
Quote this message in a reply
07-30-2008, 03:05 AM,
#30
RE: Assault Rule opinion poll
I voted for a comprimise, but the more I see the 1.03 assault rules the more I like them (obvious non-combatant bug not withstanding).

Sure I have to modify my tactics a bit as I was a big disrupt, surround and capture guy, but it is not all that bad.

Thanx!
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)