First impression report Attacking disrupted units

[Mike Abberton]

There may be glitches in the assault rule which as has been said before can be fixed. Let's do a little history lesson. When EF originally came out the assault rules were similar to what they are now. Units did nit have to be disrupted and wether they were or nor the assualt might work or not depending on the odds,factors and tables.Then Talonsoft came out with EF II and all of a sudden a unit that was not disrupted was virtually impossible to take out. I still remember my shock at assaulting a 4 sp rifle platoon with 3 MKIV full strength platoons in the open (where the tank is still king) and being repulsed. This feature was in fact shoved down our throats by Talonsoft. There were a lot of complaints (on deaf ears I might ad) and a lot of us myself included almost quit. I stuck it out but to this day I hate the rule that everyone else assumes was the original. Give it a chance guys.

There were a few men in a small mission in Texas that repulsed assults for about 13 days.I like the uncertainty of things....kind of like real life....one never knows what might happen :-)

VE

While the uncertainty probably does better reflect real life, one problem I see is compatibility with old scenarios. If it is going to take significantly longer to reduce and/or assault enemy positions, then I think the attacker is going to run out of time in a lot of the old scenarios, especially the shorter ones with 10-15 turns. That will really unbalance them particularly for the Soviets who to me rely a little more on assault tactics since their infantry and MGs are much less effective at direct fire.

I've already had 2-3 platoons of soviet SMG platoons (5-6 SPs each) repulsed multiple time by a 4SP disrupted infantry platoon. Once when they were isolated and attacked from multiple directions. The German's chief benefit apparently being they were one terrain level higher in woods.

[Jason Petho]

While the uncertainty probably does better reflect real life, one problem I see is compatibility with old scenarios.

The East Front classics created by the original Talonsoft team of designers (Bevard, Kibler, etc) were designed around the East Front assault rules. As stated above, these new rules more reflect the old rules, so, logically, they should be more compatible now.

Jason Petho

[Herr Straße Laufer]

While the uncertainty probably does better reflect real life, one problem I see is compatibility with old scenarios.

The East Front classics created by the original Talonsoft team of designers (Bevard, Kibler, etc) were designed around the East Front assault rules. As stated above, these new rules more reflect the old rules, so, logically, they should be more compatible now.

Jason Petho

The old assault rules have changed the game. I am sorry you forced that upon us. If I wanted the old assault rules I would have continued to play the old game. Now I do not have that choice?

[Jason Petho]

While the uncertainty probably does better reflect real life, one problem I see is compatibility with old scenarios.

The East Front classics created by the original Talonsoft team of designers (Bevard, Kibler, etc) were designed around the East Front assault rules. As stated above, these new rules more reflect the old rules, so, logically, they should be more compatible now.

Jason Petho

The old assault rules have changed the game. I am sorry you forced that upon us. If I wanted the old assault rules I would have continued to play the old game. Now I do not have that choice?

Apart from sticking with 1.02b, no, not yet.

But a choice is coming.

Jason Petho

[Von Earlmann]

Mike,
I'm like uncertainty even more than that.........I would like to not be able to see that big red D on my opponents units, one shouldn't see that any more than you can see the F on fatigued units............in fact if Jason can add that to the FOW it eliminates this whole thread...unless we don't really want to have fog of war either :-)

VE

[Jason Petho]

Mike,
I'm like uncertainty even more than that.........I would like to not be able to see that big red D on my opponents units, one shouldn't see that any more than you can see the F on fatigued units............in fact if Jason can add that to the FOW it eliminates this whole thread...unless we don't really want to have fog of war either :-)

VE

That would be a good component of the Extreme FOW option.

Jason Petho

[Nort]

Ooooooo ...

VE. I like it.

[Big Dawg]

Big Dawg

The AI cheats!................:-)

Thanks for making me laugh after a hard day in court.

BTW, I spent a good hour this weekend going through your scenarios and adding them to my Matrix version! Thanks again Earl.

[Chuck10mtn]

Von Earlmann,
I like that Idea better, I think if that were in place with the old assult rules there might not be so much herding then capture. Not seeing a big red D or the big F along with about half of the assult diffaculty would be just about Ideal. that would hopefully please the new assult rules haters and at the same time help the new rules likers. Not knowing if a unit in a hex to be assulted is disrupt would make a lot of differance. Just my 2 cents to help find a place where all can be happy again.

Chuck

[K K Rossokolski]

DISRUPTION AWARENESS........I tend to agree....there appears no reason why one side should KNOW for certain (as has always been the CS case, as I recall), that enemy units are disrupted. Surely in real combat there is no such knowledge...a sense or intuition perhaps, maybe some intelligence, but actual 100% knowledge? That is something only a veteran of close combat can tell us.

Noteworthy that maybe the largest case of disruption in history...the French Army mutinies in 1917.... was probably not picked up, and certainly not acted upon, by the Germans.

Concealment of "D'" might fit nicely as an optional extra in a modified extreme FOW. It could add to the realism of the simulation, unlike some other issues on which I have written critically in this forum.
CAVEAT: I for one would like to see a lot more debate BEFORE the event, rather than after, as seems to be the case, and is clearly causing real recriminations amongst our members.