Question on tactics: Assault, assault and assault

[Mike Abberton]

Here is what I have the problem with. The game is set up for a certain number of shots per turn base on the cyclical fire rate of a weapon. That cyclical rate does not change just because it is in an assault.

I am not quite clear if you are saying that assaults do or don't cost enough APs versus regular firing here. And I am not sure that the actual cyclical rate of the weapon is how they calculate firing APs. First of all, since an infantry platoon has a multitude of different weapons, which would you pick? And most straight infantry units have a AP cost of 35 to fire weapons, despite fairly different weapon stats and weapon mixes for the various armies, at least on WWII.

From the rules assaults typically cost more than normal fire since the assault costs the movement rate into the hex plus 20. True RS-style Banzai attacks are the exception which only cost the 20 APs, the hex movement is free. For a non-banzai attack, I assume the movement cost represents moving into the hex, and the 20 AP assault cost represents the actual combat, although it should probably be considered more abstract than that and looked at as a whole not a sequence of two separate actions.

Further taking a stack of units and firing them together affectively achieve what you stated above (remember grenades and small arms etc. are already factored into a units attack strength). Hence my arguement that a assualt should be the combined fire effects of all units in an assault versus just moving into that hex and "pushing a unit out" or overruning it because it is disrupted. Moving into a hex seems like a bonzi charge to me.

I am not really sure if grenades/pistols/flamethrowers are or are not included in the 1 hex range attack strength or not, to be honest. But the assault factor, which is separate from regular attack strength, should definitely include them. The different assault factors for the various units should be meant to represent their flexibility to respond to close attacks.

Also people are getting hung up on the 250sm thing. There is nothing in any of the programing stating that the unit is on the close or far side of the 250 meters. It is an range and the unit can already be physically right next to the other unit. It is just a measure of space as it is a game. I also agree that units surrounded to keep others from retreating and I have no problem with that.

I think most people realize that not all units are clustered in the center of their hex so that all combat between hexes occurs at 250 meters exactly. It's an abstraction, and combat between hexes could be anything from 1 m to 500m. However, I do think there are aspects of facing and position that are related to which hex you are in. The assault represents moving right up to an engaging at close range, even intermingling between enemy and friendly units.

Consider attacking an infantry unit located in trenches or foxholes. Attacking from a distance (maybe less than 250m, but not 10m either), the enemy unit has cover from the trenchs/foxholes, or just hiding behind trees, walls, folds in the ground, etc. To me that is combat at a range of 1 or more.

Then, consider that I work myself into close range, not a Banzai charge but working myself into close range somehow. Finally I get within 10m or so, and now I can throw hand grenades into foxholes, infiltrate the trenches and fire down their length, get men with angles to negate other types of cover. That is an CS assault to me.

It might be more realistic if the assault could be more random in its results or not necessarily be resolved in one turn. In fact, it would be interested if a possible assault result would be that the units involved become "locked in combat" and unable to do anything else until the assault is resolved.

I just have always thought the surround and overrun tactic in the assault a bit very unrealistic. No where is this more evident then in DGVN where the US mobility easily surround the NVA and overruns them as they disrupt easily but just as fast regain their normal status. It would be much more interesting to see the effects of a combined fire effect and what happens to the stacked defender than just overruning them.

I'll admit that I haven't tried DGVN (I can't find my old copy of DG), but it is possible that the game system just isn't set up to depict the realities of the typical combat of Vietnam very well. The game system was designed around medium/large scale land comabt in Europe/Western Asia. The realities of the smaller scale of combat in the denser terrain of Southeast Asia/the Pacific might not be a great fit.

I have been reading Samuel Morrison's History of the US Navy in WWII, and I am realizing that Rising Sun does not do a particularly good job simulating many of the combat realities the US, Commonwealth, Dutch, and Japanese troops faced in the Pacific Theater.

EDIT: By the way, I just wanted to note that, all of the above are my interpretations of the CS games. Not saying I am right or anyone else is wrong, just presenting my views on the concept. So hopefully no hard feelings for anyone. :)