Question on Alternative Assault Resolution

[TJD]

Well, no, I never said that the chipping away power in regards to infantry was higher -- I was referring to tanks and anti-tank guns (which I don't think there is many of either in the Troina scenario). I don't think you could utilize the infantry to shoot and disrupt units in bunkers to any good effect in the stock game, regardless of the values, at least not that I am aware of anyway. Also, what usually differs higher in regards to the infantry in the _Alt over stock game is the assault ratings.

The AT and Tank Hard Attack values are the same in both the stock and Alt versions of this scenario. The Assault values of the tanks are 7 in Alt and 9 in stock. There are actually quite a few tanks and AT guns here.

I wasn't referring to using infantry using HA in fire attacks against bunkers. That's not possible anyway. I was referring to their HA values in assaulting bunkers. As I understand the rule, the HA value is used when assaulting hard targets like bunkers. Per the manual: "if all the other side’s strength is made up of Hard Targets, then the effective Assault value of the unit is the same as its Hard Attack value." Certainly, Range 0 infantry have to use HA in assaulting bunkers under the Alt rule.

So, though it's true that the general Assault values are higher in the ALT version, that seems to be of limited relevance to the bunker question.

I'm not trying to quibble here. I'm relatively new to the games and and am trying to understand this Alt rule and why so many players seem to regard it as canonical - whereas to a novice like me it seems a severe handicap vis a vis bunkers. The point that both you and Rick have made, namely, that what the Alt rule takes away is balanced by higher values elsewhere in the bunker-assault equation, doesn't seem accurate, at least in this specific scenario.

I have to wonder if I'm not making some basic conceptual mistake here.

Anyway, thanks for the education, guys!

Tim

[Volcano Man]

The main difference with the Alt Assault Resolution is how it handles hard targets in assaults, as per the rules. It basically gives a little more advantage to armor in these cases, and it allows range 0 hard attack ratings to be factored at all. Without the AAR rule, then range 0 hard attack values do not play a role.

You can turn this rule off if you want, it won't bother me. ;) If you do turn it off though, then you will start to lose quite a few more tanks in assaults against infantry than you probably should, *especially* in the 1940-1943 period.

Other than that, I was speaking from memory about that scenario. Having opened it now, I see that there are nothing but Stuart tanks and light AT guns available to the US forces in that scenario and yes, the hard attack values are roughly in line with the stock game values in that regards (because it is the low end of the spectrum), so that kind of makes what I said a moot point. I think you will still find, by and large, that the assault values of infantry in the _Alt are usually higher though. As to why all this is, well, I can't really explain it again other than to say that you should pick your poison; if you prefer the stock game and its rules then by all means play it that way. The _Alt is only meant to be a standardization of unit ratings, mobility, and tweaks for balance where needed, all for a different experience - but it isn't the be all end all. It is normal for different people to prefer one of the other.

In regards to the scenario specifically mentioned, I suggested that I would lower the BUNKER to Bunker to make things easier, and at least one person opposed that saying that it is pretty balanced already. So, I don't know what to say, sorry. I may still do that to see if it changes anything drastically, or not.