 |
|
Something is "Wrong" with EA - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Something is "Wrong" with EA (/showthread.php?tid=57502) |
Something is "Wrong" with EA - Kool Kat - 12-04-2010 Gents: :smoke: There is something "wrong" with EA. I don't know how else to describe game play with the optional EA = ON. Case in point: I am playing RS "The Fall of Tarakan" and Curt the scenario designer recommends that his scenario be played with EA. So be it. A few turns into play... one of my Japanese infantry platoons (strength 6) assaults an undisrupted Dutch scout jeep (strength 2 / defense 1) sitting in an open / clear hex. Nothing happens! :eek1: No retreat... no reduction in strength points... nothing. The scout jeep just sits there. It was only after repeated direct fire attacks... from multiple platoons... was I able to retreat and finally destroy the scout jeep unit. So... a 60 man infantry platoon armed with rifles, light MGs, and mortars assaults a bunch of guys sitting in jeeps... in the open... and the infantry platoon can't even put a scratch on the jeeps' paint? :( Since that incident... there have been numerous times in my game... of lightly armed scout vehicles and MG-equipped trucks holding off company strength infantry. However... it seems that the "EA mechanics" make more sense when my Japanese units are forced to attack the Dutch defenders hold up in industrial and city hexes. I can understand the difficulty of capturing such built up areas... and IMO it would take a careful preparation of direct fire and multiple assaults to be successful. I also understand the "correct" method of assault to utilize with EA... multiple direct / indirect fire into the target hex.... work your friendly units into position to surround the target hex... then assault the target multiple times... wash and repeat until target is destroyed. I get it. Now please... my intent of this thread is NOT to reopen "old wounds" with the existing assault versus EA argument. :hissy: It is only to report what I have observed during game play with EA = ON and the impact to the scenario. Finally... while I believe that EA "could" be a good "first attempt" at improving the current assault rules... more work needs to be done here before I will be able to shake that "wrong" feeling. RE: Something is "Wrong" with EA - Huib Versloot - 12-05-2010 The jeep probably has an assault value > 0. It has nothing to do with EA rule. You should have shot it probably. Looks like you are assaulting when you shouldn't Oh well I rather would'nt assault a firing MG jeep let alone another armored vehicle in the open. Assault it in an urban or wooded hex and you will win no doubt. Huib RE: Something is "Wrong" with EA - Jason Petho - 12-05-2010 Don't forget to factor in Morale of the defending unit. If you have done nothing to reduce their morale, your odds of a successful assault are diminished. Jason Petho RE: Something is "Wrong" with EA - Scud - 12-05-2010 Your odds of a successful assault is better in urban areas? Or only against hard targets in urban areas? Also, is the thinking that the jeep with the machine gun has as much as 250 meters before the overrun reaches it, therefore they hold their ground since morale is high and that's a lot of open ground to cross? Dave RE: Something is "Wrong" with EA - Huib Versloot - 12-05-2010 (12-05-2010, 03:38 AM)Scud Wrote: Your odds of a successful assault is better in urban areas? Or only against hard targets in urban areas? Well against hard targets for sure. This example could also be used to say EA works very well. Why assault moving and firing jeeps when you can riddle them with bullets from a save distance. RE: Something is "Wrong" with EA - Mr. Guberman - 12-05-2010 Kat, To me, it sounds as if things are working correctly. First: If I recall correctly, each strength point of infantry, actually, represents 6-9 men (half squads). Second: Soft vehicle (armed) defense strenths, I believe, are too low anyway. Third: Huib's point...of a "meat chopper" on a jeep, scything across 125 meters (let's halve the diameter of the hex assuming the jeep is in the middle) of open ground...would deter the best of troops... Fourth: God forbid, if the firing unit is armoured...as the "old" assault rules assume that all of the attacking units would have assaulted with sticky bombs or crawled onto it ("them" actually) like fire ants. In CS, "assault", is an abstraction of a number of possible incidents. Fouth: Being a combat veteran...assaulting any heavy weapon across open terrain reminds me of "charging into the mouths of the cannon"...and I cringe. Give it chance. I do believe you will come to enjoy it. Personally, I think the original assault rules (hence the tactics, then habits developed) were innaccurate. Once one understood how to "disrupt, surround and assault" it became formula...one could mathematically postulate the outcome (let's not go into "shoot and scoot" as represented by CS). In my oppinion, it was terribly unrealistic. Hope you do enjoy playing the scenario, though. Cheers Curt RE: Something is "Wrong" with EA - Crossroads - 12-05-2010 I concur... I for one have changed my opinion for the EA. Pillboxes, trenches, bunkers all fall to assaults when done with a bit of patience. As Huib, now Rod is proving the case for me time after time :hissy: :smg: RE: Something is "Wrong" with EA - Kool Kat - 12-06-2010 (12-05-2010, 01:55 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: The jeep probably has an assault value > 0. It has nothing to do with EA rule. You should have shot it probably. Boy. I'm glad it was "improper" tactics on my part... and not EA? :whis: (12-05-2010, 11:01 AM)Mr. Guberman Wrote: Hope you do enjoy playing the scenario, though. Actually Curt... I am! There is more to The Fall of Tarakan than at first glance! RE: Something is "Wrong" with EA - Mr. Guberman - 12-06-2010 Very good. It appears your opponent is mum...as it probably should be. Early Pacific fighting, for all sides: Allies: Assess your forces (most probably, one's assessment will be "what!"); make cogent task forces out of them...which often means retreating like Russians, so that you may coalesce. Do not fight the Japs head to head...you will loose. ...until you have diced him up enough too do so...have yet to see that occur. Japs: Contact, pin, bypass...repeat, contact, pin, bypass. The Japanese must advance on every turn. Cheers Curt |
){kind=link}