A case for Delayed Disruption aiding attacker

[Liquid_Sky]

Wouldn't it be the attacker that benefits most from immediate feedback? Since he has units available to assault to take advantage of that knowledge? If there is a key disruption, wouldn't it be the attacker who would make best use of it?

An attacker who is disrupted on your turn, may rally, and the attacker may never know that you actually disrupted his unit.

As for important units behind the lines in LOS....There are some targets that are always a priority for my artillery...other artillery, HQ's, infantry in the open.

A lot of times it is easier to damage the enemy hitting those units, since they will be harder to hurt in the front lines.

You seem to have looked at a specific situation, and are trying to apply it generally as a rule.

Generally: I do not shoot at adjacent enemies as a defender. Being disrupted by defensive fire is way worse then the damage I can cause.

Generally: I shoot artillery at defenders individually, and once (lacking a priority target). A habit I got into from Normandy's campaign. If you play with artillery striking all the units in the hex, then that is moot.

Generally: I want to know if the hex I that I want to take contains a disrupted unit or not. If I have the luxury of lots of units (I am Russian) then generally it wont matter.

Generally: If your opponent can only afford to put single units in a hex for defence, then I really want to know if I disrupted a unit or not. It is usually the defender that has single units per hex.

While I will concede that in Moscow '42, delayed disruption may help the defender more then the attacker, I haven't played this one yet, so I can't really comment on this specific game..but on the other ones I have played using it: Sealion (defender), Tunisia (attacker/defender), Sicily (defender), I haven't really noticed any sort of 'advantage'.

I should add that in any given scenario, the role of attacker/defender can flip....or even be applied to both sides on different parts of the map.