Extreme assault?

[umbro]

It seems that a consensus has grown around this issue that involves:

1) A risk of greater combat losses.

2) A reworking of the Morale Saving Throw.

Point 1) is easily addressed by simply introducing an effectiveness multiplier for assault combat.

Point 2) is more interesting. The concept appears to be that whether a defender successfully sees off an assault into its position is based on the Morale (read elan for this purpose) of the defending unit. On the face of it this is a good model. The problem with the approach as coded is that it does not take into direct consideration factors that would impact that elan - such as the elan and numbers of the attackers. (It does indirectly as some of those factors will impact the losses caused in the combat part of the assault).

Original Assault had these two phases also, but the second was really simple - if the defender was disrupted and there were any undisrupted attackers then the defender retreated. Note: really simple - but takes into account the attacker! However, too simple and too predictable.

It seems that a strawman is beginning to emerge. We know that at the extremes:
1) If there are no undisrupted attackers the defenders hold (btw, when a leader is in an attacking stack and the rest of the attackers are disrupted the leader should probably enter the hex on his own)
2) If all the defenders are destroyed the attackers advance.

and the crux:
3) Morale duel decides.

umbro

[Jumbo]

I have read the rule book regarding how the 1.02 assault results are factored. I don't see any problem with it. In reading Umbro's post., I also believe we should see greater chance of casulties results on either side during and assault. And as my last post #110 on this subject. I believe firmly that the morale rating of both the attacker and defender should weigh in heavily. Morale rating is one of the tools used in the game to show the quality of that unit. Attack, defense and assault values are one thing and they play their important role. But morale rating IMO should be just as important as those primarily because of what we can see what happens with the 1.02 and EA assault results. Assaulting is a huge part of the CS game (at least it is for me). Please read my post #110 for some examples.

[Dan Caviness]

Jason:

Huib is right. Dickens II may not have been the best choice for my example, but I think it serves. Jason, you played it with extreme assault on and the Allies ended up at minus 500 or so. I believe if you play it with the 1.02 old assault rule they don't lose that badly. Remember as first side they have the onus to take objectives, and your results show that with extreme assault and a bunker to bunker murder map, they can't do it.

Also recall that scenario starts the Allieds at 500 VP's and they can actually lose ground to 400 and still get a minor victory. The victory levels on that scenario are set up to take account of the nasty terrain around Monte Cassino. Since your bunker to bunker, the old tactic was to disrupt everyone in a hex, usually through concentrated artillery and crossed fingers, and then you assaulted to push them out of their bunker. You can't be saying it's easier to take those bunkers now that you not only need to disrupt everyone, you need to shoot them up and lower their morale significantly as well. Not going to happen, everyone's in a bunker or pillbox.

So...what I think I'm trying to say is....your test validated my point. That being, it's harder with extreme assault. I think it's a fact, and we both agree on that. Or, did I miss something? You made the change to make assaults more difficult, and that's a fact. OK, all well and good (remember I play with extreme assault ON I am not the enemy here) but it does skew previously established victory conditions by making it a tougher row to hoe for the first side.

I like the new system...but I do wish we would see more damage when we have failed assaults. On both sides.
But...if a defender is outnumbered and undergunned and being attacked by a superior forces utilizing mixed arms, commanders when possible, multiple directions, etc....that defender should get more damage even when they hold their hex.

My two centz...blah blah...I'm moving on....let's gripe and complain about the new ARTILLERY TABLES....!

Regards,

Dan

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

Jason:

Huib is right. Dickens II may not have been the best choice for my example, but I think it serves. Jason, you played it with extreme assault on and the Allies ended up at minus 500 or so. I believe if you play it with the 1.02 old assault rule they don't lose that badly. Remember as first side they have the onus to take objectives, and your results show that with extreme assault and a bunker to bunker murder map, they can't do it.

Also recall that scenario starts the Allieds at 500 VP's and they can actually lose ground to 400 and still get a minor victory. The victory levels on that scenario are set up to take account of the nasty terrain around Monte Cassino. Since your bunker to bunker, the old tactic was to disrupt everyone in a hex, usually through concentrated artillery and crossed fingers, and then you assaulted to push them out of their bunker. You can't be saying it's easier to take those bunkers now that you not only need to disrupt everyone, you need to shoot them up and lower their morale significantly as well. Not going to happen, everyone's in a bunker or pillbox.

So...what I think I'm trying to say is....your test validated my point. That being, it's harder with extreme assault. I think it's a fact, and we both agree on that. Or, did I miss something?

Okay, been following this a bit and I have to ask did I miss something?

I'm assuming Jason played the Germans as the scenario is designed to be played. If so, despite EA, he cleared and retook almost every objective on the map including four that were bunker or pillbox? That doesn't seem to support the arguements against EA.

Seriously, am I missing something or did Jason play the Brits? Just wondeing :chin:

[Dan Caviness]

PZ Korp:

My game shows the Brits as first side. Am I confused? Jason's screen shot shows the Allies as first side doesn't it?
Allies first side, all options on, including Extreme Assault.
Jason's game finished at minus 500 or so if memory serves?
So....he played EA...and the first side got slaughtered.
Not unusual in that game...it's a tough one....but I don't think I ever lost by that much...that's huge...:chin:

There are two or three Dickens scenarios but Dickens II is the one I checked tonight in game. It shows the Allies as first side, and victory conditions are:
Major Defeat = 0
Minor Defeat = 200
Minor Victory = 400
Major Victory = 600
The Allies start with 500 VPs worth of objectives.

Still...it is quite possible I am confused...that happens more and more these days....lol...if I've got it wrong my apologies.

I'm not arguing against EA. I'm hoping (like a few others in this thread) that we can find some sort of middle ground between where it used to be and where it is now. I'm fine with playing it, I'm fine not playing it. I think it would be nice if we had a version that everyone could live with.

Since I'm not arguing I'd like to close by mentioning that anyone who has spent 5,6,7 or more turns trying to take a hex with the new assault rules knows the new rule makes assault harder...

That's a fact...been there....done that...and Von Luck has slaughtered me while laughing like some crouching demon deep in that bunker....or pillbox....or wherever....
Probably just as well...I had it coming...and if you don't enjoy pain this is the wrong game...

Regards,

Dan

[Jason Petho]

The scenario introduction recommends "Best Played as AXIS" (as displayed in the screenshot) and that is what I did.

The Allies had a thrashing handed to them. Yes, I took out the majority of the pillboxes and bunkers with little issues, even using only part of my forces.

That being the case, there is nothing wrong with the assault rules, based on this test. Heck, one could even argue the scenario is rather pro-German. This is a player victory by 582 points.

Jason Petho

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Chuck10mtn]

The scenario introduction recommends "Best Played as AXIS" (as displayed in the screenshot) and that is what I did.

The Allies had a thrashing handed to them. Yes, I took out the majority of the pillboxes and bunkers with little issues, even using only part of my forces.

That being the case, there is nothing wrong with the assault rules, based on this test. Heck, one could even argue the scenario is rather pro-German. This is a player victory by 582 points.

Jason Petho

Jason,
I'm for the EA so I'm not complaining, but if there is some sort of magic mix of troops to make EA more succesful them it should be included in the update explaination. I think what is getting on peoples nerves is the fact that I've read rumors about this magic formula but nobody will say anything one way or the other. I would like too see it toned down a little, but compared to the old version it is much better and more to what happened in the battles just my opinion. I don't know weather Dan is using it in his Normandy 44 or not, but we're using it in our teamgame. It seems to be pretty good, but we as the Allies have a lot of arty at our disposal.

A lot of good Ideas have been mentioned here. I like the Idea of the defenders chances lowering each time they are assaulted in a given turn. The Idea of greater losses on both sides are good. I'm not sure about the Morale dice roles and all the nuts and bolts of the EA rules, its far beyond what I'm capable of thinking about while playing a game. Thanks for all the work and if there is a secret formula to EA please send it too me I'm in need of some help.

I know that no matter what, somebody will be mad and not happy with what you come up with. Hopefully people smarter than me will come up with some good ideas that will be able to be put into the game, but above all don't change because you can, change because it makes the game better.

Chuck

[Scud]

Whether Dickens II was a good example or not, extreme assault will certainly affect scenarios that weren't designed to take it's effect into consideration, and, in some cases, that might not be a bad thing. Regardless, I'm in favor of turning the option off as a standard unless playing a new scenario where the designer specifically recommends it be used. Of course, if it isn't finalized, that becomes an issue of it's own.

Presently, NONE of my opponents opt to use it in our games. Same with variable visibility. I only use those rules playing the computer, as I think it gives the computer a small handicap. Hasn't seemed to matter much, but then my computer is really stupid.

[Dan Caviness]

Jason:

So you played it as Axis, or second side, against the AI which played first side if I understand?
If so...your margin of victory is at least in part due to playing the AI.
Consider giving a human a try.
No matter what a scenario recommends...if you ask the computer to handle first side and force your computer to prosecute an offensive....you get game scores like the one you show.

No matter.
Not the point.

Apparently we are all the way back to square one 17 pages ago and trying to see if the new rules make assaulting harder. They do for normal humans who don't know your secrets.

Jason...explain that magic mix Chuck10mtn is asking about?
If you have a way to make this work, it is not obvious to me or a lot of others.
Are you saying you have not ever gotten hung up trying to assault a hex over multiple turns? Share the magic please...

You DID make the new assault rules to make it more difficult...right?

Dan