 |
|
How do you see it? - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: How do you see it? (/showthread.php?tid=43325) |
How do you see it? - Pat22 - 12-05-2007 What distinction do you make between a regular attack and an assault? I have trouble imagining what a regular attack tries to portray. No problem imagining an assault: you close in on the ennemy and spook him out of his foxhole with grenades if he chooses to stand. Defensive fire is also easy: while the ennemy is closing or taking up positions he necessarily crosses open space and leaves himself vulnerable to effective fire. But once everybody has taken cover, there is not much to shoot at. My point being how can you make an effective attack without moving in (assaulting the ennemy)? In Napoleonics the distinction is simple, you exchange stand-up volleys (regular attack) and at the critical moment you rush him (assault). Anyway how do you picture regular assault for Panzer Campaigns? I just need to be suggested a picture (I am ususally easily convinced;)) On a more general level, my only other quibble with PC is the length of the major campaigns. To play by email looks like a lifestyle! I think 3 or 4 turns per day (instead of 10) would be perfect... Otherwise PC has to most impressive line-up of games and the combat model seems quite well studied! RE: How do you see it? - Sgt Barker - 12-05-2007 Excellent topic. My opinion (perhaps contradicting design intent), is that there’s not as much difference as might first appear. The main difference is how a unit exploits weapon range. On the surface another difference is one is made to take ground, the other to inflict casualties. Though it’s interesting to note that both arguably can be used to “take ground.” A fire attack on a Broken unit can leave the hex vacant, and controlled (taken) via ZOC by the firer. Both attacks subject the attacker to casualties, fatigue, disruption, etc; the beauty of defensive fire. The only difference is weapon range. So I don’t see them as all that different. Both involve getting close enough to the enemy to use your weapons. So while an assault can mean hth combat, it can also mean just getting within a few hundred meters and convincing the opponent to run away. Likewise a fire attack can involve getting up relatively close and using rifles and mgs, or standing off at a greater distance. RE: How do you see it? - Dog Soldier - 12-06-2007 Fire attacks are simulating the WW2 tactic of establishing fire superiority before the assault goes in. The assault is the close combat attack to drive the enemy out of his position. Dog Soldier RE: How do you see it? - Pat22 - 12-07-2007 Dog Soldier Wrote:Fire attacks are simulating the WW2 tactic of establishing fire superiority before the assault goes in. The assault is the close combat attack to drive the enemy out of his position. Fire superiority? Would that be the same as suppressive fire? I mean if the guys are in foxholes there is only so much you can do with light infantry weapons. Basically you fire so the guys keeps their heads down as you make your move in. At least that's how I see it, but I am not an expert in ww2 tactical fighting. In Panzer campaigns you generally assault once the enemy has been softened up (disrupted), which can take a few gameturns, that is several times 2 hours where you pepper him with fire (without coming at close quarters). I just wonder if that was what happened in real life. I can imagine indirect fire for a few hours (artillery), but suppresive infantry fire (inflicting casualties) that's not so straightforward. I guess what would make me totally happy would be a "suppressed" state, almost the same a disrupted, but it could happen with few casualties. How about that? I agree it probably wouldn't change the game that much... RE: How do you see it? - Volcano Man - 12-07-2007 Just a quick reply: in modern warfare there are two methods of attack that do not involve assault by the firing units: attack by fire and support by fire. Attack by fire is where a unit establishes themselves and fires on an objective without actually advancing. In a support by fire a unit does the same but it is supporting another unit that is advancing to and will eventually assault. Maybe that helps(?). In PzC and MC, a unit firing without assault is basically conducting an attack by fire. RE: How do you see it? - Dog Soldier - 12-08-2007 Disruption is the same as suppression in PcZ. Ever disrupt an enemy unit by fire, then assault, only to see your boys disrupt and come tumbling back to the start line? Though the game does not show this there are various "stages" of disruption. I am not going to give away the farm, but if you watch carefully which assaults work and which ones do not, you will begin to develop that sixth sense a commander has..."I can feel them breaking". There is a right time to send in your assault. This game has many subtleties in the game engine that are not spelled out any where. You learn about them from experience, just like a real commander. The more actions you fight, and survive, the better chance you have of learning. Ever see a unit disrupt when only one casualty was inflicted on it? Why would that happen? I think it was the battalion or company CO that got whacked. Dog Soldier |
){kind=link}