Question on tactics: Assault, assault and assault

[Herr Straße Laufer]

To answer the question, within the first portion of the six minutes the HT's were participating in an assault with infantry and armor. If they then assault alone without it because they have movement points left, then they are breaking accepted ROE's?

I do see your point.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Huib,

I would say that there were many armored encounters at less than 250 meters. We cannot shoot within the same hex in CS so the assault is the only option.
It was very rare but I have recently read accounts of Russian armor (during Kursk) ramming German panzers to disable, etc.

So assaulting is ramming?

He did not say assaulting was "ramming". He said that assaulting was attacks within a 250 meter hex?

That is not a good definition because assaulting in CS is much more common than 'ramming'.

Your premise exists when you defined Cole's ramming as his definition of assaulting.

What I'm trying to point out is that people invent so called realism ROEs while at the same time they can't even give a definition of an assault between armored vehicles.

??

That doesn't mean I would use that tactic, since my HTs are usually behind the lines because I find their MG's too undergunned to provide fire support for my infantry. CM is modelled better in this respect. You can actually utilize the HT's MG, while at the same time the HT is unable to harm a tank. Vehicles can't "assault" in that game.

Due to it's scale? Probably why some players like CM and others dislike it?

Everyone seems to "overthink" the game in one form or another?

[Cole]

Due to it's scale? Probably why some players like CM and others dislike it?
Everyone seems to "overthink" the game in one form or another?

I think that sums it all up. The scale of Campaign Series leaves a lot of room for speculation and "overthinking" but when all is said and done CS is an enjoyable game to play as opposed to the very detailed games Road Runner mentioned that might be more realistic but not so fun to play.

This is an interesting thread though. I've never given much thought to what a close assault in CS actually represents.

[Cole]

Huib wrote: That doesn't mean I would use that tactic, since my HTs are usually behind the lines because I find their MG's too undergunned to provide fire support for my infantry.

I think that more folks would use half tracks the way you do if they were concerned with the next battle. The true value of the half track was transporting those troops and if I was facing an opponent at the beginning of a campaign I would welcome him moving his half tracks forward when my armor or AT is around.

One day I would like to see how it would be possible to play a linked campaign game with a human opponent.

I think some folks are testing this concept but I have not been lucky enough yet to join.

[Huib Versloot]

He did not say assaulting was "ramming". He said that assaulting was attacks within a 250 meter hex?

We've already established previously in this thread that firing was something different than assaulting. (your own words) So what is this "attack" in the same hex then, if it is not ramming

Your premise exists when you defined Cole's ramming as his definition of assaulting.

That's your interpretation.

What I'm trying to point out is that people invent so called realism ROEs while at the same time they can't even give a definition of an assault between armored vehicles.

??

Don't know how I can be more clear. What is the definition of an assault between armor. In other words what do they do, since they are not shooting as they can't shoot from the same hex. If they do shoot, why can smaller calibers suddenly penetrate armor they otherwise couldn't (ie a HT or Panzer I can destroy a bigger tank)

Due to it's scale? Probably why some players like CM and others dislike it?

probably

Everyone seems to "overthink" the game in one form or another?

Because people invent funny ROEs without reasoning to back them up and then declare them 'commonly accepted'. Otherwise I wouldn't even have bothered. I never have had any problems with my opponents, nor have I ever discussed any ROEs before playing.

[Gordons HQ]

Wonderful everybody, it's great to see some discussion here.
It just shows how many various opinions there are about the game.
Please continue it's most interesting to have a debate about things. It just shows we don't always agree about everything.

I would would stress I would never again use that kind tactic re the halftracks, I used it out of curiosity and in desperation because others had used similar ones on me. If people use these kind of tactics though, they seem to eventually become acceptable and I personally don't think they should.

Regards,
Gordon

[Von Earlmann]

I am still amazed that everyone still thinks a turn is = to six minutes...........also Cole.....linked campaigns are indeed available vs human opponents.....there are 3 ongoing now.........and trust me..halftracks are used a bit more cautiously there or they are gone forever ........and the campaign keeps going...and troops find another ride or walk.......and darn!..there's that realistic word again :-)

[Glint]

:chin:
Had a quick peruse of the messages and thought to myself,
if one treats a move as six minutes, an assault with a mix of Infantry, armour and half-tracks can only be done one hex at a time? Whatever order the units assault in, if you finish the assault off with empty half-tracks that are in the vicinity of the other units, surely within the six minutes, it's reasonable to consider they were part of the combined force and supported, albeit beforehand? Quite acceptable I would have thought although I would rarely do it myself but using the halftracks to close a retreat hex is also acceptable, I would have thought?
Just a thought, a big one, lol!
regards
Glint

[Mike Abberton]

Don't know how I can be more clear. What is the definition of an assault between armor. In other words what do they do, since they are not shooting as they can't shoot from the same hex. If they do shoot, why can smaller calibers suddenly penetrate armor they otherwise couldn't (ie a HT or Panzer I can destroy a bigger tank)

I guess I would describe an assault between armor to be intermixed vehicles where the more generalized armor factors start to break down as tanks could start to target individual items (vision slits, periscopes, known weak spots, etc.), rather than more general fire from longer distances. Also with intermixed units, hits on side and rear armor become a lot more likely.

Now admittedly, the game model starts to break down at that scale, but the alternative is that a tank platoon can never move into the hex of an enemy tank unit without getting a retreat first or wiping it out altogether.

And what happens when an enemy tank is stacked with an infantry unit? Would I be able to assault with a tank then? Assault with friendly infantry only?

Also, the armor-assualting HT issue/ROE is much more prevalent than the PzI issue. How many PzIs were even still in use by the time they started encountering T-34s? Compare that to how many times half-tracks and enemy armor were on the same battlefield. I don't think anyone who uses the "HTs cannot assault armor with their attached infantry" house rule is really saying that PzIs should be able to assault armor, it just doesn't come up enough to get mentioned. The HT rule is just a simple rule to limit the most commonly encountered assault glitch.[/quote]

[Huib Versloot]

I guess I would describe an assault between armor to be intermixed vehicles where the more generalized armor factors start to break down as tanks could start to target individual items (vision slits, periscopes, known weak spots, etc.), rather than more general fire from longer distances. Also with intermixed units, hits on side and rear armor become a lot more likely.

Now admittedly, the game model starts to break down at that scale, but the alternative is that a tank platoon can never move into the hex of an enemy tank unit without getting a retreat first or wiping it out altogether.

Nice description. Makes sense to me. The alternative is not too attractive indeed.