A case for Delayed Disruption aiding attacker

[ComradeP]

The problem is that you can wage sort of a "mathematical" war. If you move adjacent to one of my units/stacks from 2-3 sides, and I disrupt most of your attackers, I can decide to stay put as statistically speaking the chance of all or even most of the attackers becoming undisrupted is not that high. I also benefit from two more abstract rules: that defensive artillery fire hits the entire stack, which means everybody can disrupt, and that defensive artillery fire in terms of how many units fire at the attacker is random.

I can thus make a simple cost/benefit analysis of the chance of how likely you are to take a hex. If I see that none of your units became disrupted as a result of my bombardment or direct fire, I might move back.

Having no exact knowledge of if a unit is disrupted or not as a result of what I do in my turn can make a substantial difference. The primary weakness of the side that can more or less only "assault assault assault" is that you can't assault with disrupted units. If most of the attacking units are disrupted, my defending unit is not likely to take much of a beating from assaults during the attacker's turn. Damage from artillery fire is a different story.

Also: in a game like Moscow '42, the Soviets are not deployed for offensive action along most of their initial frontline, so it will take up to 2-3 days to get everybody where you want them to be for the "1 division per 3 hexes" attacks you're describing.