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.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
