Extreme assault?

[Dan Caviness]

Mwest, Roadrunner, et al:

One of the most frustrating assault losses now is against units with no assault factor of their own. AT guns, disrupted or no, arty, mortars, etc, can and do stand tall and repulse assaults now. That should be changed I believe. While I like the new challenge, I'd like to see it come back somewhere between the old and new version.

In other words, what you said.

Perhaps a toned down version could include credit for some of the following tactical ploys:

1. Units with no assault value of their own (and especially with no mobility) should get overrun almost all the time...regardless of their defensive terrain.

2. Damage should increase for BOTH sides. I say yes....make assaults riskier.....but the pain should be dealt in the form of strength point losses and disrupts....not failed assaults. The same goes for failed assaults....even if the attacker fails....if he has the superior forces...he should screw up the defenders....making the next assault more likely to succeed.

3. Commander Credit (but increased chance of his becoming a casualty)

4. Mixed arms Credit....armor and infantry. ( I believe Jason's new version does this but sometimes it seems like it has little effect)

5. Multiple Direction Credit

6. Multiple Assaults Credit on the same hex....whether within the context of a single turn or over multiple turns with an isolated defender.

7. Increased odds of success on isolated units.

Jason's new process already covers terrain advantage, and of course morale. It does seem now that if you want a "gauranteed" assault you had better shoot them up first to try and lower their morale. Actually at this point it appears to be the predominant method of winning an assault.

Those matter and should continue to matter, but perhaps matter less while at least some of the above matter more.

Regards,

Dan

[Kool Kat]

Dan:

Excellent suggestions and input into the EA discussion!

I especially like your #1 and #2 suggestions.

1. Units with no assault value of their own (and especially with no mobility) should get overrun almost all the time...regardless of their defensive terrain.

It makes a lot of sense to have no assault value units (like transport and crewed guns); defending by themselves, to be overrun the majority of times by assaulting forces. A gun crew; with a handful of personnel, holding out against platoons of assaulting infantry and tanks... for multiple turns, really gets into the realms of science fiction!

2. Damage should increase for BOTH sides. I say yes....make assaults riskier.....but the pain should be dealt in the form of strength point losses and disrupts....not failed assaults. The same goes for failed assaults....even if the attacker fails....if he has the superior forces...he should screw up the defenders....making the next assault more likely to succeed.

Agree. Assault pain needs to go both ways and dealt out as you propose. One of the primary weakness of the ver 1.02 assault rules is the automatic success rate of assaulters versus disrupted defenders... and the nearly "risk-free" option of the assault itself to the attacker. Make the proposed assaulter weight the risks of assault to his own troops, but don't make assault so "extreme" as to effectively remove it as a combat option all together? :chin:

[dawags]

I have been agreeing with Dan Caviness for over 40 years. He has pestered me to join this forum. I have tried to get up on some of this dialogue, as we have discussed this since 1.04 came out, and have been at this game since it was TalonSoft early...

It has forced a change in tactics for sure.

I have yet to experience the dreaded multiple assaults over many turns for naught. So, I don't have the frustration of others. Perhaps it is something to look forward towards. :)

I have gone to multiple assaults per turn, given the opportunity, or all shots with no assaults per turn. I have found this to be more effective than the old strategy of shooting until all are disrupted, and then assaulting to take the hex with what is left. I have taken hexes that I would never have taken under 1.02 rules. I'm not certain whether this is better, just forces a different style of play. In games where taking the hex through assault is a must, I can see the extreme assault as extremely problematic.

Dan's two major points are MUST changes, however...

1) 0 assault factor units are currently getting way too much credit. I have experienced an inability to take hexes on these units with a :eek1: response.

2) The damage for assaulting has never been adequate. Black powder John Tiller games result in automatic damage to both players in an assault, as long as there are viable combat units left in a hex. Campaign series games should have similar damage, including those to the assaulting player, unless odds are overwhelming in attackers favor, or defender is entrenched in quality terrain, even though facing overwhelming odds.

Nice board...
Good discussions...
Thanks for having me...

dawags

[Dan Caviness]

So all that screaming back and forth over the mapboards was ageeing eh???

Nice to see you old man.
Anyone plays this guy....give him no smoke...he's evil with smoke...

No...seriously...

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I have been agreeing with Dan Caviness for over 40 years. He has pestered me to join this forum. I have tried to get up on some of this dialogue, as we have discussed this since 1.04 came out, and have been at this game since it was TalonSoft early...

It has forced a change in tactics for sure.

I have yet to experience the dreaded multiple assaults over many turns for naught. So, I don't have the frustration of others. Perhaps it is something to look forward towards. :)

I have gone to multiple assaults per turn, given the opportunity, or all shots with no assaults per turn. I have found this to be more effective than the old strategy of shooting until all are disrupted, and then assaulting to take the hex with what is left. I have taken hexes that I would never have taken under 1.02 rules. I'm not certain whether this is better, just forces a different style of play. In games where taking the hex through assault is a must, I can see the extreme assault as extremely problematic.

Dan's two major points are MUST changes, however...

1) 0 assault factor units are currently getting way too much credit. I have experienced an inability to take hexes on these units with a :eek1: response.

2) The damage for assaulting has never been adequate. Black powder John Tiller games result in automatic damage to both players in an assault, as long as there are viable combat units left in a hex. Campaign series games should have similar damage, including those to the assaulting player, unless odds are overwhelming in attackers favor, or defender is entrenched in quality terrain, even though facing overwhelming odds.

Nice board...
Good discussions...
Thanks for having me...

dawags

Welcome Dawags!
Nice to see you posting. You've a good friend in Dan, if he brought you here! :smoke:

Good points! :)



RR

[dawags]

Thanks RR,

I'm trying to get up to speed on a lot of this.
I have noted with interest some of this discussion.
Dan and I have played this game for a loooooooong time.
We settled on it years ago, as our "mecca" of gaming after many years of going through many games.
Dan doesn't care for Black Powder, otherwise I'd play more of those games also...
We got our start over boardgames, when there were NO electronic games...
Hard for some of the "younger" members of this forum to fathom, but us more "mature" players can still remember...I think... :O
I won't let one change "color" my view of an otherwise excellent game.
And, it's an optional rule, so it has that going for it... :)

I see the J.T. leadership team involvement here as a positive step toward the improvement of these games.
Ideally, they get it right...
Ideally, they listen to those that play...
At the end of the day, though, and you can verify this through Dan, I am the ultimate practical Realist... :)

dawags

[Valor]

Another thing that would ease the fate of surrounded, disrupted unit would be no "defenders captured" result. Instead, if unit loses the fight they have to retreat, if the path for retreat goes through enemy, undisrupted, more than "0" assault value unit zone of control, retreating platoon suffers additional loses.

I believe that tweaking the assault rules shouldn't go towards making it "extreme", it should go towards reducing automatic defeat to defender (which was never automatic, rarely but some high defense value units could survive)

Just my two cents

Regards

Slawek

[Chuck10mtn]

Another thing that would ease the fate of surrounded, disrupted unit would be no "defenders captured" result. Instead, if unit loses the fight they have to retreat, if the path for retreat goes through enemy, undisrupted, more than "0" assault value unit, retreating platoon suffers additional loses.

I believe that tweaking the assault rules shouldn't go towards making it "extreme", it should go towards reducing automatic defeat to defender (which was never automatic, rarely but some high defense value units could survive)

Just my two cents

Regards

Slawek

Valor,
You make a valid point, soon it will get down to the winner of one assuaut will win the entire game. People who have made the assault a staple of there offensive MAY have to re-think their strategy. As I've stated before I'm not a big fan of the assault in the game,that said I'm playing Dan's D-Day scenario as a team game and using the extreme assault rule. I can't see disrupt Germans being overrun on the beach easily.If you want to make the assualt easier lets get rid of the big red " D " that makes it easy to see who to assault. How did commanders SEE into what the enemy was thinking or how he was acting 250 meters away. Good or bad those troops were fighting for their lives and the extreme assualt seems pretty good for people in that position. Surrender was always a last resort. Just my thoughts on this subject.

Chuck

[Hawk Kriegsman]

You make a valid point, soon it will get down to the winner of one assuaut will win the entire game.

What?!!! Many, many, many scenarios since the inception of game have come down to a final assault, final shot, final unit being exited, etc.. This will ALWAYS be true whether you use extreme assault or easy assault.

People who have made the assault a staple of there offensive MAY have to re-think their strategy.

No you are wrong. People who use disrupt, surround and assault may have to rethink their strategy if they use extreme assault rules.

You cannot take assaulting out of the game. Sometimes it is the only way you can dislodge a defender from a hex....period.

As I've stated before I'm not a big fan of the assault in the game,that said I'm playing Dan's D-Day scenario as a team game and using the extreme assault rule. I can't see disrupt Germans being overrun on the beach easily.

Please go play the scenario "Get Off the Beach" as the Americans with the easy assault rules on. Then get back to me on how the easy assault rules helped the Americans.

If you want to make the assualt easier lets get rid of the big red " D " that makes it easy to see who to assault. How did commanders SEE into what the enemy was thinking or how he was acting 250 meters away. Good or bad those troops were fighting for their lives and the extreme assualt seems pretty good for people in that position.

You do realizxe that this is an abstract representation of events?

You do realize that a commander would receive reports of sporadic and ineffective fire?

You do realize that troops close to the enemy can see the enemy cowering?

You do realize that two adjecent units could be as close as 1 meter away? (cheers to Huib for pointed that out).

Surrender was always a last resort.

Really?! You do realize that there were more soldiers taken POW than surrendered in WW2 don't you?

Just my thoughts on this subject.

Indeed.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Hawk Kriegsman]

You make a valid point, soon it will get down to the winner of one assuaut will win the entire game.

What?!!! Many, many, many scenarios since the inception of game have come down to a final assault, final shot, final unit being exited, etc.. This will ALWAYS be true whether you use extreme assault or easy assault.

People who have made the assault a staple of there offensive MAY have to re-think their strategy.

No you are wrong. People who use disrupt, surround and assault may have to rethink their strategy if they use extreme assault rules.

You cannot take assaulting out of the game. Sometimes it is the only way you can dislodge a defender from a hex....period.

How about encouraging those who have a problem with losing assaults (and thereby their games) work on getting better at the game as opposed to have every tactic they don't like be rendered ineffective by programing changes to the game?

As I've stated before I'm not a big fan of the assault in the game,that said I'm playing Dan's D-Day scenario as a team game and using the extreme assault rule. I can't see disrupt Germans being overrun on the beach easily.

Please go play the scenario "Get Off the Beach" as the Americans with the easy assault rules on. Then get back to me on how the easy assault rules helped the Americans.

If you want to make the assualt easier lets get rid of the big red " D " that makes it easy to see who to assault. How did commanders SEE into what the enemy was thinking or how he was acting 250 meters away. Good or bad those troops were fighting for their lives and the extreme assualt seems pretty good for people in that position.

You do realizxe that this is an abstract representation of events?

You do realize that a commander would receive reports of sporadic and ineffective fire?

You do realize that troops close to the enemy can see the enemy cowering?

You do realize that two adjecent units could be as close as 1 meter away? (cheers to Huib for pointed that out).

Surrender was always a last resort.

Really?! You do realize that there were more soldiers taken POW than surrendered in WW2 don't you?

Just my thoughts on this subject.

Indeed.

Thanx!

Hawk