Extreme Assault Clarification

[Crossroads]

Here's the assault explanation document from the manual folder. I re-read it, and while it still makes my head spin :chin:, I sort of "get" the logic behind the repeated assaults strategy. I try to set up a series of 1:1 assaults (or slightly better) instead of the definitive 3:1 assault I grew up with the cardboard games.

I marked with bold some points I try to remember, as trying to keep all this inside my head is way too much, at least for me. :smoke:

Essentially, when a hex full of units is attacked by an assaulting force, the game takes count of all the factors of the attacker vs all the factors in the defending stack. It also takes count of the number of counters (units) in the defending hex and evaluates them for various conditions like armor assaulting into an urban or open hex, fortifications, modifying terrain, etc. For our new processing I also had the software sum up the different morale values of the different units and derive an average based on the number of units in the defending stack. If any units in the stack are disrupted, their morale level is counted at a -3 of what is shown in the unit information box. This has the adverse effect of lowering the average morale of the stack and presents a realistic problem for the defender.

When the assault is executed, the software goes to the combat routines and conducts casualty assessment based largely on the same principles that govern shooting combat. Except in this case its defense and offense values are independent of armor facing.

When the casualty assessment is finished, the software conducts a die roll and compares it to an odds based combat results table that I developed. If the attacker wins the die roll an automatic -5 is applied to the defender's morale, simulating the fact that the attacker won and its effect on the defending unit’s morale. If the defender wins, his morale is increased by 3, again simulating an increase due to victory over the attacker. The game then does a morale check based on the defender's modified average morale. If the defender fails his morale check and there are undisrupted units in the attacking force, then the assault is successful and the defender is subject to the software's retreat processing. Otherwise, the defender wins and remains in his hex.

It should be noted at this point that I did not modify the retreat processing at all and that it is now and always has been identical to what the original designers put into the game. That being the case, it is still possible to surround and destroy units. As I said before, it has always been possible to do so, even in 1.03. Except now it is harder to do. The previous system had relied heavily on there being a 99% chance of defeating disrupted units. That is no longer the case. Disrupted units now have a fair chance of defending themselves and although it is still relatively easy to defeat them, the chance of doing so has slipped to between 60% and 70% of the time.

The odds based combat results table is the real gem in all of this for while it still makes it harder for assaults conducted at below 1:1 to succeed, it also allows the worst case attack a 15 percent chance of victory over the defender. This is also reflected at the top of the scale where the defender still has at least a 10% chance of defeating the attacker. And then no matter what happens, it is always possible that the defender might either fail or pass his morale check and completely negate the odds based die roll.

So what does this all mean to the guy playing the game? Simply this, nothing is as predictable as it was before. A player can plan his odds of success, and yet, no matter how well he plans, he may still lose. Or else he can try an enormous gamble that might otherwise be doomed to failure, and see it succeed.

Basically, an attacker has his best chances of success if he can find ways to reduce the defender's morale. This can be done either by firing at them and reducing their strength (often accompanied by a morale loss), disrupting them, or both. So just as in real life, it is always wise to soften up a target before you hit it.

Assaults can result in high casualties for either side. A number of successful tank attacks ultimately bogged down and halted during the secondary assaults after the attacking units were disrupted or damaged during the initial assaults. On the other hand, an attack can defeat a stack of units causing them casualties and reducing their morale. Further attacks can continue the attrition process and the defending stack can find itself sent back multiple times in a cascading series of defeats that continually erodes its strength and morale. Or they can beat the crap out of the attacker in the secondary assault and stop him dead.

Armor alone inside cities versus infantry is at a severe disadvantage. But if they are heavier units like Panthers, Tigers, and Bears, they may at least survive any onslaughts from attacking infantry. However, infantry can now defeat armor inside urban hexes, even in the attack

As Hawk points out, assaulting tanks without infantry in close support on built up hexes is good fun (depending of course on which side you are looking at it). I've had a chance to try it a couple of times and it surely beats trying to shoot them instead!

EDIT: On a final note, I played out turn #23 of Arracourt one more time, this time with the purpose of trying to disrupt each of the defending platoons. I actually managed to do that, and again had my assault being a success. So it is fair to conclude the last stand of the 4th AD would fall regardless of EA settings... :soap: