Being one of "
those people" (thank you Gevatter1
) that regularly used the tried and true "disrupt, surround, and annihilate" tactic I was one of the community that quietly cursed under my breathe at the new assault rules. I voted for the option to use either rule.
I have to confess though, after some regular play I am acclimating myself to the new circumstances and truth be told when the rules are an option I'll probably continue with the new 1.03.
True, assaults are not the certain kills I use to set up, but aside from the quirks that will be worked out in 1.04 (Jason?) I am beginning to think the new rules do better reflect the uncertainty and bloodiness of close in combat. One effect that is noticeably different is that favorable results are often kills not simply retreats. That I like, makes sense really. Consider two adjacent units firing away at each other for a turn, one would expect some casualties in that exchange. It would seem obvious then that if both of these units were temporarily in the same hex during an assault there should be casualties not just retreats. Under the old rules casualties did seem to be seen less often.
A few pages earlier in this thread I questioned how the hell I was suppose to storm bunkers full of Soviets in "The Cauldron of Fire".
It may be of interest and surprise to some (me included) that quite a few bunkers have been taken. One VP bunker notably has changed hands three times in successful assaults and counter assaults. An equally important fact is that in every circumstance the subject bunker had been held by a minimum of at least three units. Heck when I got kicked out I even had engineers in the bunker. Guys, the positions still can be carried.
Earl, Elefants are being
eaten by Bolshevik infantry not on the first assault but by subsequent continued attempts and the results are not just retreats they are
kills
Ed, Once action really got started and morales started to crumble a bit both myself and my opponent have been able to "
herd the sheep" to "final assaults" for large captures.
It has been said before, but I think it does bear repeating; these rules will have an impact on the old scenarios as success in these new circumstances does require longer "prepping" of a defender. Makes me realize how important my nebelwefers are at Kursk. It is harder to take things on the run but really how often should that occur? I've read that good commander must be able to adopt and improvise, well I'm trying and I find every successful assault all the more satisfying. Hmm, don't know if I'll ever be able to assault my way to major victory again in "Gunfight at Flavion" though.
So am I a convert yet? Maybe, the jury is still out but I'm starting to think there may be a surprise verdict for this assaultin' fool.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}