Extreme assault?

[Fubar]

What is extreme assault? I see it's in the optional rules section but there's no help text on it, i also looked in my PDF manual but couldn't find it anywhere, although i did find extreme fog of war and armour facing rules!

[Jason Petho]

What is extreme assault? I see it's in the optional rules section but there's no help text on it, i also looked in my PDF manual but couldn't find it anywhere, although i did find extreme fog of war and armour facing rules!

There is an Assault_Explanation.doc in your Manuals folder.

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

What is extreme assault? I see it's in the optional rules section but there's no help text on it, i also looked in my PDF manual but couldn't find it anywhere, although i did find extreme fog of war and armour facing rules!

What Jason referred to was this:

Assaulting with the 1.04 UPDATE
August 18, 2008 by Jason Petho

With the 1.04 UPDATE you will find that the new Assaulting Rules have been optional. You may find them within the Optional Rules dialogue when starting a new scenario, whether that is for PBEM or standalone against the computer.
If you do not choose the Extreme Assault option, you will play under the pre-1.03 UPDATE rules where disrupting the units in a hex is all that is required to successfully assault a hex. The Talonsoft method. On the other hand, if you do choose the Extreme Assault option, you will play under the 1.04 UPDATE rules where a guaranteed assault is no longer the “norm”.
So, how does it work?
In the wise words of our brilliant programmer, Wyatt:

Essentially, when a hex full of units is attacked by an assaulting force, the game takes count of all the factors of the attacker vs all the factors in the defending stack.  It also takes count of the number of counters (units) in the defending hex and evaluates them for various conditions like armor assaulting into an urban or open hex, fortifications, modifying terrain, etc.  For our new processing I also had the software sum up the different morale values of the different units and derive an average based on the number of units in the defending stack.  If any units in the stack are disrupted, their morale level is counted at a -3 of what is shown in the unit information box.  This has the adverse effect of lowering the average morale of the stack and presents a realistic problem for the defender.
 
When the assault is executed, the software goes to the combat routines and conducts casualty assessment based largely on the same principles that govern shooting combat. Except in this case its defense and offense values are independent of armor facing. 

When the casualty assessment is finished, the software conducts a die roll and compares it to an odds based combat results table that I developed. If the attacker wins the die roll an automatic -5 is applied to the defender's morale, simulating the fact that the attacker won and its effect on the defending unit’s morale.  If the defender wins, his morale is increased by 3, again simulating an increase due to victory over the attacker.  The game then does a morale check based on the defender's modified average morale. If the defender fails his morale check and there are undisrupted units in the attacking force, then the assault is successful and the defender is subject to the software's retreat processing.  Otherwise, the defender wins and remains in his hex.
 
It should be noted at this point that I did not modify the retreat processing at all and that it is now and always has been identical to what the original designers put into the game.  That being the case, it is still possible to surround and destroy units.  As I said before, it has always been possible to do so, even in 1.03.  Except now it is harder to do.  The previous system had relied heavily on there being a 99% chance of defeating disrupted units.  That is no longer the case.  Disrupted units now have a fair chance of defending themselves and although it is still relatively easy to defeat them, the chance of doing so has slipped to between 60% and 70% of the time.
 
The odds based combat results table is the real gem in all of this for while it still makes it harder for assaults conducted at below 1:1 to succeed, it also allows the worst case attack a 15 percent chance of victory over the defender.  This is also reflected at the top of the scale where the defender still has at least a 10% chance of defeating the attacker.  And then no matter what happens, it is always possible that the defender might either fail or pass his morale check and completely negate the odds based die roll.
 
So what does this all mean to the guy playing the game?  Simply this, nothing is as predictable as it was before.  A player can plan his odds of success, and yet, no matter how well he plans, he may still lose.  Or else he can try an enormous gamble that might otherwise be doomed to failure, and see it succeed.
 
Basically, an attacker has his best chances of success if he can find ways to reduce the defender's morale.  This can be done either by firing at them and reducing their strength (often accompanied by a morale loss), disrupting them, or both.  So just as in real life, it is always wise to soften up a target before you hit it.
 
Assaults can result in high casualties for either side.  A number of successful tank attacks ultimately bogged down and halted during the secondary assaults after the attacking units were disrupted or damaged during the initial assaults.   On the other hand, an attack can defeat a stack of units causing them casualties and reducing their morale.  Further attacks can continue the attrition process and the defending stack can find itself sent back multiple times in a cascading series of defeats that continually erodes its strength and morale.  Or they can beat the crap out of the attacker in the secondary assault and stop him dead.
 
Armor alone inside cities versus infantry is at a severe disadvantage.  But if they are heavier units like Panthers, Tigers, and Bears, they may at least survive any onslaughts from attacking infantry.  However, infantry can now defeat armor inside urban hexes, even in the attack. 
 

I really couldn’t explain it better myself. Principally, the assault_basics_v1_20080115.pdf is still relatively accurate and you may wish to use it as a guideline when deciding on when and where to assault.
Any questions? Feel free to post on the Matrix Games Message Board in the Campaign Series Forum and the questions will be answered accordingly.
Hope you enjoy the new system!
Take care and good luck
Jason Petho
___________________________________

Basically the game engine takes over by a series of random die rolls. Skill and reason are thrown out. "Realism" is forsaken and becomes what the random die roll will bestow upon you.
Obviously, my personal opinion.
I would prefer a "medium" assault formula as opposed to either the no difficulty of version 1.02 or the "extreme" difficulty of version 1.04.
Just what has been done to the miriad of version 1.02 scenarios and the poor quality of version 1.04 scenarios has diminished the game. Both versions have gamey aspects.

Add to that the the diminished role of armor and the game changes are quite striking when using version 1.04.

Sadly, "extreme assault" has taken hold and the Matrix team has not hinted that they will provide other options in future updates. So, we must adapt and overcome in both version 1.02 and version 1.04?



RR

[JRTXX]

well Im not anywhere near the "nuts and bolts" kinda player, I like seeing the tanks move and explosions kill stuff,,loloolol so maybe one of our fine " I calculate everymove with protractors and mainframe computers" might be better,,,,
all I do know is every battle Ive played since the NEW option, no one has used it,,,,
HOWEVER,, I have noticed even with the "extreme assault" option off,,, supposedly the "old" rules,,, it just dont work anymore,,lololoo in two present games,, Ive assaulted a dispupted reg inf plt,, at strength 2 or 3,,, with a strength 4 PzIV,, strength 2 (or 3, cant remember) 109 Halftrack ,, TWICE and nothing!!!

on another Ive had disrupted inf,, weak and surrounded,, assaulted by 2 or 3 regular INf,, nothing!!!,,,

yet another battle a 2 or 3 strength disrupted eng unit, hit by 3 full strength Pz38ts and a full strength PzII ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

these USED to work,,loloooo

Ive found tht even without my computer/protractor/sliderule,,,,,,,,,,,, it just aint worth it anymore

JMHP,,,

[Krec]

yes , its way tougher assaulting with the new rules.:pullhair: More time is diff needed to be successful. Some of the older scenarios just dont have enough time given to the attacker.:mad: I dont mind the new rules if given proper time. But the defender has a big edge now and can really cause the attacker to use more time then before. Armor also is not what it should be in the open against infantry. Armor should maul inf in the open and it just doesnt do that now. My worst exp is failing an assault only to kill the unit from a desperate last hope long shot with min odds:conf:. Also when shooting , try and shoot multiple units at the same time,:boom2: for some reason i get better results. Keep playing and try and get a feel for whats going on. Nothin is for sure with the new rules.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

yes , its way tougher assaulting with the new rules.:pullhair: More time is diff needed to be successful. Some of the older scenarios just dont have enough time given to the attacker.:mad: I dont mind the new rules if given proper time. But the defender has a big edge now and can really cause the attacker to use more time then before. Armor also is not what it should be in the open against infantry. Armor should maul inf in the open and it just doesnt do that now. My worst exp is failing an assault only to kill the unit from a desperate last hope long shot with min odds:conf:. Also when shooting , try and shoot multiple units at the same time,:boom2: for some reason i get better results. Keep playing and try and get a feel for whats going on. Nothin is for sure with the new rules.

I do not think that adding time to old scenarios is the answer.
It is part of the answer but, not the entire answer.
Force mix and the location of the victory hexes are the more important factors in adjusting scenarios to make them more in line with extreme assault.
I think the new formula lets the "game engine" and random die rolls take over the game. Plus, a savvy player can do some really gamey things that will effect most games where the attacker must advance into built up hexes to gain victory hexes. Simply adding turns will only allow the defender to exact a greater number of victory points from the attacker, as the attackers losses mount.

I do play games using extreme assault. I don't like them but, if my opponent wants to play with it on I am O.K. with it. I've even started adjusting my custom scenario designs to work with (or even without) extreme assault on. Early playtesting shows that they work, so far.

I just want the "chance" factors limited. It is why I asked for a lighter assault formula. It will allow skill back into the game?

RR

[Fubar]

Thanks for the advice and help, it sounds like i'll have to take care in my games where extreme assault has been selected as an option.

[Big Dawg]

Hi guys,

I think most everyone agrees that the Extreme Assault option makes assaults more difficult.

I have used this option with great success to "rebalance" a scenario that heavely favors the attacker statistically. The scenario plays out differently with the new rule and gives the defender a fighting chance for a victory.

This gives new life to some of the "one sided" scenarios.

Just an observation......

[Hawk Kriegsman]

This gives new life to some of the "one sided" scenarios.

Just an observation......

Unfortunately it has taken just as much life away from balanced scenarios and made them one sided.

Thanx!

Hawk

[umbro]

With Extreme Assault OFF, assaulting makes sense when the enemy is disrupted, and surrounded by friendly ZOCs. As long as one attacking unit survives the assault undisrupted the defenders will be captured.

With Extreme Assault ON there are very few circumstances where assaulting makes more sense that simply shooting. This is because the new assault rule relies, finally, on a single Morale Check. Even if you defeat the defender in the assault combat and give him -5 for the check, let say he starts at 8 and is in a village - then you still only have a 40% chance. Plus, in my experience the attacker seems rarely to win the assault (the CRT is unpublished and thus its pretty hard to decide whether it works as advertised). However, there are some circumstances where assaulting is better than firing.
1) Early war infantry versus tanks. For example, a 6SP French infantry have a attack factor of 2 vs Hard and an assault value of 4. Lets say it is faced by a 3SP PzKpfw IIID with front armour 3, side armour 1, and defence strength 3.
Assume that the tank is in open so that the infantry can assault twice or fire twice. Then assaulting twice will do an expected loss of 1.2, firing twice will do an expected loss of .6, and moving to get a side shot and firing once will do an expected loss of .9
Note: When assaulting, the enemy will get a free attack against you (as part of the assault process) in this case 3@6:7 EL=0.18

2) When fighting an enemy who starts with low morale. Remember, that morale is lowered whenever a unit fails a morale check. Thus, once a unit starts losing Morale it will lose morale faster. If a unit starts with a low morale it is therefore easier to push it lower, and when it reaches 3 or thereabouts asaults are more likely to succeed. However, bear in mind that when a unit reaches 0 morale it disintegrates. So shooting at the morale 3 unit a couple of times is likely to destroy it without an assault.

3) Attacking pillboxes with early war infantry (see 1 above)

4) Trucks, wagons, etc. Always good for an assault.

umbro