A case for Delayed Disruption aiding attacker

[Liquid_Sky]

It's just a rule. It doesn't really 'affect' one side more then the other. It really comes down to how a player blends his knowledge of the rules into an effective attack/defence.

In some games, as the defender, I may never fire a shot. When I played Kasserine I am pretty sure we had Delayed disruption on....and it probably made no difference. If I am playing as the Russians in one of the campaign games, I would not let it influence me on my assaults. I would still move adjacent to the Germans in 2 or 3 adjacent hexes (probably 3), fully stacked...then assault assault assault. I probably wouldn't even shoot first, since my goal is not to take the hex, but to shoot his fatigue up so high that when he disrupts, he breaks.

As a defender, If I am dug in enough to have the luxury of shooting at an adjacent enemy, then I will concentrate my fire on high profile units like engineers, or spread out my fire...depending on the situation. If he too strong to shoot at all his units, then perhaps it is time for me to back up a hex to delay his advance.

So really, I think it is all very situational, and may even depend on your own play style.

The game really uses a lot of probabilities. You can shoot all your stuff at one thing, to give yourself a higher probability of disrupting it, or spread it out so you don't know what unit may end up disrupting.
In the Stalingrad campaign I played, the Germans were all in bunkers along the encirclement, mostly stacked one per hex. I probably only had around a 2% chance of disrupting a B quality german in a hard target with artillery (and alt rules). But I fired maybe 25 artillery pieces a turn (twice). SO something was going to disrupt, I just had to make sure I was able to exploit it when it happened.
With Delayed Disruption on, I would never know, and it would give the defender a 'rally phase' to undisrupt so that by my next turn, I may never know that I actually disrupted that bunker.