Extreme Assault Clarification

[Jason Petho]

I was working on the Combat section of the manual for Modern Wars and just noticed something I wasn't clear on before regarding how the 15% attack win or 10% defence win functions.

Here is my blurb from the manual, hopefully it clears things up.

Extreme Assault works under the same rules, but has a significant additional element factored into the equation, primarily the Morale of the unit. All of the Morales are summed, with a -3 penalty for Disrupted defenders, and averaged based on the number of units defending the target hex. After the Combat elements of the Assault have been calculated, a second die roll is performed and compared to an internal Assault Combat Results Table. If the Attacker wins the die roll, the defender’s Morale suffer a -5 Penalty. If the defender’s win, the defender’s Morale is increased by 3. A Morale Check is performed based on the defender’s modified Morale and the assault is successful if the defender fails the Morale Check and at least one of the assaulting unit(s) remains undisrupted. Otherwise, the defending wins and remains in the target hex.

The internal Assault Combat Results Table also allows any assault scenario a 15% chance of success and the defender a 10% chance of remaining in position. Of course, this is negated if the defender does not pass the final Morale Check.

All of the Middle East scenarios were designed with the intended use of Extreme Assault.

Jason Petho

[Jim von Krieg]

Playing "A Close Run Thing" about Salerno in a team game... and EA is factoring into it in an almost jaw dropping fashion... as a lone half strength engineer platoon in Paestum is fighting off an entire regiment of the 36th ID with tank support...

We have a reduced engineer (3 SP) in Paestum surrounded by the Amis and holding out long past the time they should have been wiped out... It's turn 17...

Surrounded, hip deep in Amis and with no hope of success... Yet he is still inflicting pain on the Texas boys as the German arty rains down on the Amis heads as they mass for their assaults...

Turn after turn, the artillery lands on the German Engineers, the infantry/tank/AT/AA fire on him... and infantry/engineer assaults achieve no result...

I suspect, the German Iron Men live as long as the smoke lasts to absorb the punishment...

SALUTE to the heroic hold outs...

[Larry Reese]

Well, I suspect that handling the attacks in a different manner might have sped up the process....

LR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

LOL!
Some players can say that it is the effect of Extreme Assault which is the problem. But, I do not know which player would say that. ;)

I remember a lone surrounded Mg platoon that held up two battalions of Brit infantry for nine or ten turns. Even after being disrupted continually and assaulted by gobs of troopers each turn, it would recover morale and the process needed to be repeated for each turn. All the while using it's three shots per turn to disrupt and kill off many troopers. Until it was finally shot to death.
But, the delay and damage had been done ... and it soured the game a bit. :(

Jim, I feel your pain! Even when you do it right you are doing it wrong? :grin2:



HSL

[Crossroads]

Even after being disrupted continually and assaulted by gobs of troopers each turn, it would recover morale and the process needed to be repeated for each turn.

FWIW, and if I interpret this correctly, the process of assaulting with heavy odds is propably not the way to use EA.

Getting a kill lowers the morale, disruption as such is not necessary (I believe). Then, if you have say four platoons available for the assault, you would assault it with two platoons at a time, twice per turn. Then repeat with the other two platoons.

As a result you would get four assaults per turn, and if any of the previous assaults results in a kill or disruption, the next one would be more likely to work out. There is no way a single MG unit would last the ten turns.

Just trying to help with my two cents here

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Even after being disrupted continually and assaulted by gobs of troopers each turn, it would recover morale and the process needed to be repeated for each turn.

FWIW, and if I interpret this correctly, the process of assaulting with heavy odds is propably not the way to use EA.

Getting a kill lowers the morale, disruption as such is not necessary (I believe). Then, if you have say four platoons available for the assault, you would assault it with two platoons at a time, twice per turn. Then repeat with the other two platoons.

First off, the unit was fired upon from multiple hexes each turn. Secondly, as the turns progressed the unit was surrounded and both fired upon and assaulted from multiple hexes. Assaulting with heavy odds can lead to multiple disrupts and therefore make the unit weaker against following assaults. I know that the unit was disrupted multiple times but still stood it's ground, on occasion, from a "minus morale" level. :chin:

As a result you would get four assaults per turn, and if any of the previous assaults results in a kill or disruption, the next one would be more likely to work out. There is no way a single MG unit would last the ten turns.

Let me add that the unit was in a town hex and I think there was a trench in the hex. But, over the course of those ten turns it was disrupted, by indirect and direct fire, multiple times each turn prior to any assaults, and it lost all it's strength points by the final turn, when it was killed by fire.
But, as I said, the "delay" damage was done. I believe, as Jim, that if it was a "real" situation, that that Mg would have surrendered. I am sure if faced with the same in real life many would have surrendered for even less cause.

If Kool Kat wants to confirm what happened (or if my memory is faulty and he can correct the record) he will do so.

If you do not want to take my word for it, then so be it? :(
I have no reason to lie.
I do think EA is a bad rule for the game but I would not lie about it to make my points against it. :smoke:

There is always that final luck roll in the formula?
And, it makes me look forward to those "hero: units. :kill:



HSL

[Huib Versloot]

The oddest things with EA only happen to those who don't know how to play with the rule on and then take every opportunity to lenghty piss on it verbally. The rule is optional so why discuss it.

[Crossroads]

If you do not want to take my word for it, then so be it? :(
I have no reason to lie.
I do think EA is a bad rule for the game but I would not lie about it to make my points against it. :smoke:

There is always that final luck roll in the formula?
And, it makes me look forward to those "hero: units. :kill:



HSL

My intention was not to be disrespectful? I quite believed what you wrote, hence my reply.

I still don't understand how it could take that many turns? Maybe them buggers were just unbelievably lucky?

I just finished my DAR of "Legend Is Born". During the game, I managed to take Arracourt with circumstances similar to what you described. For the DAR, I just repeated the turn where the assault took place - and managed to take it again.

Have a look: https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...#pid338629

[Scud]

The oddest things with EA only happen to those who don't know how to play with the rule on and then take every opportunity to lenghty piss on it verbally. The rule is optional so why discuss it.

The rule, of course, is optional, but discussing it helps players who use it, use it well. I've been playing with it in recent games, including Petri's current tournament. I'm still trying to get a handle on it. I need the discussion. Without EA, disruption is the key, with it, morale becomes the key. Since my opponents don't have their morale communicated to the enemy the way disrupted units do, it can be a bit tricky, at least so far for me.

I still try to disrupt, I still surround when possible, I still try to whittle down enemy strength through direct fire and artillery, but when the assault works or doesn't work, I'm unsure why.

I assume having a commander in the hex helps. I assume infantry in a town or other defensive position helps, I've been told armor in a town is weakened (true? what about in wooded areas?) and Petri's example of multiple assaults rather than one big one now makes sense as well.

What else?

Dave

[Crossroads]

Here's one, I forgot to put this into my DAR. And I'm no expert btw, although I do prefer to play with it, rather than without.

Without EA, one needs to disrupt all units in the hex. Ie., one needs to fire at all units succesfully, before the charge.

With EA, concentrate on the weakest link, get kills, as it has an effect on the whole stack. At Arracourt, there were four US platoons in the hex. Two of them started disrupted, and I kept firing at those only. I only got a disruption, despite of the pounding, but it was enough as it seems. I have no idea at what strength those platoons were... But it was four platoons.

Similarly, I just managed to surround a company of Russians at Kuuterselka, and assaulted them, having killed a couple of SPs first. The whole company was captured. I did have a few units available, but more like 1:1 on strenght.

Maybe Jason could chip in a few hints & tips of his?