Question on tactics: Assault, assault and assault

[Cole]

I am still amazed that everyone still thinks a turn is = to six minutes

Then please let everyone know what the time scale actually is. Page 119 of the Game Manual says six minutes. There might of been a new announcement on the message boards or in a patch update but I missed it.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

He did not say assaulting was "ramming". He said that assaulting was attacks within a 250 meter hex?

We've already established previously in this thread that firing was something different than assaulting. (your own words) So what is this "attack" in the same hex then, if it is not ramming

LOL! Your further line of reasoning made me think you did not understand what was being said.

Don't know how I can be more clear. What is the definition of an assault between armor. In other words what do they do, since they are not shooting as they can't shoot from the same hex. If they do shoot, why can smaller calibers suddenly penetrate armor they otherwise couldn't (ie a HT or Panzer I can destroy a bigger tank)

Maybe the dictionary will be helpful?
Assault; (4th description) Military term, a) a sudden attack upon a fortified place b) the close-combat phase of an attack
I think "b" combined with what Mike, Panther Bait posted may be enough of an explanation?
It also justifies my first quote, listed above.
It's a part of the game engine. Do you wish the designers and/or developers to remove it? :chin:

Because people invent funny ROEs without reasoningto back them up and then declare them 'commonly accepted'. Otherwise I wouldn't even have bothered. I never have had any problems with my opponents, nor have I ever discussed any ROEs before playing.

In my favorite Jerry Seinfeld voice; "who are those "people" ... and why do you think they invented funny ROE's?"
Your assumption that they are "without reasoning" seems to be a jab that has no reason to be here? Erecting 'strawmen' or specious at best? :rolleyes:
Who declared anything "commonly accepted"?
And, if you had bothered to ask the questions or read the old posts concerning Assault ROE's or participated in them, you may not "feel" the way you do?
This has been a subject that has been discussed since before I joined the club and on & off since then. And, it has been featured on almost every discussion of ROE's in tournaments, due to players using different ROE's. I think it has come up in every accusation of "cheating" or using "stunt methods". Most of the time I remind players to discuss the ROE's of their opponents beforehand.
It lessens the whining later? :smoke:

Huib, thanks for your input. Once again your personal viewpoint has been enlightening.

[McIvan]

To me the assault is closing with the enemy with the intention of driving them from their position or destroying them in place, and occupying that position yourself. It is the intention of taking ground that makes the difference. That definition, I think, defines assaults between AFVs just as well as anything else.

Huib makes a good point about machinegun armed tanks that are in reality not much better in terms of armour and killing power than halftracks. However at least the Halftrack rule keeps them used relatively historically as integral supports to the infantry they carry, a role not occupied by AFVs where it is the other way around (as a general rule that is, I'm sure exceptions can be dug up). An AFVs role includes conducting assaults, a halftrack's role generally did not, cavalier bren carriers aside. If you want to use them in the assault, they should really be full of infantry....and the points cost of losing loaded halftracks means the tactic is used sparingly indeed....it becomes self-regulating.

I disagree with Huib's point when you have anything larger than a machinegun. Naturally any sort of cannon will in fact be more deadly the closer it gets. You can get close enough to actually target specific vulnerable portions of the enemy AFV with some hope of hitting them. You can get round the sides and rear. It's up close and personal, and I think you have to go with the flow somewhat and allow as an abstraction that light tanks can take out a disrupted and panicky enemy heavy tank platoon at point blank range, whether in your mind's eye by disabling them, destroying them, or rendering them combat ineffective by hits to weapons, sighting sytems, tracks. A little abstraction goes a long way.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Thanks McIvan! :thumbs_up:

"To me the assault is closing with the enemy with the intention of driving them from their position or destroying them in place, and occupying that position yourself. It is the intention of taking ground that makes the difference. That definition, I think, defines assaults between AFVs just as well as anything else."

It's a part of combat on the battle field. That and holding the ground formerly owned by the enemy, which was made possible by the enemy unit becoming combat ineffective?
I know that the message states "you have captured", but it is more that a unit or units are no longer capable of interdicting on the battle field.

[Pax25]

I just have to put my two cents in here:

I have been wargaming for many years now and I always see these same debates. So many great games have been ruined because someone thinks it's "unfair" or "not historical". The bottom line is, these are GAMES based on historical events. That's all. At times they can be very realistic, but at other times they are about as realistic as flying queens and bishops are in a chess match. After seeing this discussion so often, I usually find that the people who think the game is "unfair" or "not historical" have usually lost the majority of their games. The fun of wargaming is not thinking of ways to implement new rules to limit play, but trying to think of ways to out smart your opponent. With that said, I'm glad this club has not engaged in all sorts of "house rules". I will no longer tolerate playing my wargames with a computer printout of house rules 20 pages long telling me where, when, and how I should attack (reading the game manual should be enough). I've been there, done that. I used to enjoy playing Hearts of Iron II (Paradox) until the multiplayer house rules got so long that I couldn't even understand them, and following them was more challenging than my law practice since they changed on a day to day basis and differed from game to game.

At the same time I support the concept of two people agreeing upon rules of engagement (although personally I think this will ultimately cause more problems as people will interpret them differently) and I always follow a scenerio designers house rules, especially in the TOAW.

Just my two cents.:soap:

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Pax25, good points! :thumbs_up:

I'm one for letting the game play as the game. In every club you will find rules mongers and "historical detail" enthusiasts. Heck, it even happens with those whom I play board games. Nothing kills fun like someone who pulls out the rules every two minutes to let you know what they can do and what you cannot do? :rolleyes:

My biggest beef with players is their using transports for spotting, drawing fire, and helping in surrounds during assaults. And, using armored halftrack/transports to assault armor without other combat units being involved. Otherwise, to me, if the game allows it then do it.
This is the one area that a "personal ROE" needs to be agreed upon, due to not being addressed by the game engine? Until the developers multiply the point value of transports by three or four, trucks will be abused by some players?

The only time that the club allows "global rules" to be instituted is during tournaments. The director of the tournament can have rules, such as, "no withdraw of units from the map" and "empty trucks cannot be used for spotting". One day I'll run a tournament that requires the mouse to be used left handed. ;)

All in all it is just a game. We should all try to have as much fun with it as we can?

[Charlie-66]

I have read this thread with great interest, and respect the opinions of all who have posted. I agree that any ROE's need to be between individual players, and not dictated by the house. I think the surround and overrun function probably has a lot of its ancestry in some of the old board games. Does anyone else remember trying to master the rules and tactics around Zones of Control? The only way to eliminate a unit in some of those old board games was to force a retreat on a unit that could not do so because of surrounding ZOC's.
We could all go on all day about the "historical inaccuracies" in the game. The undervaluing of the firepower of MG's on HT's, the lack of effectiveness of artillery on armored vehicles, and the seemingly instantaneous deployment of and short duration of smoke jump to mind. What's the point? It's a great game, and one that by any standard of measuring longevity has been around a long time. Someone nailed it earlier when they brought up the demise of Advanced Squad Leader. It was so realistic you couldn't play it. So as others have said, the game is an abstraction with certain concessions made to playability. So let's enjoy it and appreciate the great club we have here. My $0.02

OH, has anyone done a count of how many times this issue has come up on this board?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I ran out of fingers and toes! :smoke:

[junk2drive]

One day I'll run a tournament that requires the mouse to be used left handed. ;)

I already use the mouse left handed.

Maybe that explains my record...

[Smedley]

Against my better judgment, I have decided to chime in.

I love this game........please don't screw it up!!!!!!

Realism isn't the most important thing. Playability is.

Add new nationalities, time periods, weapons, units, scenarios etc......

Please don't mess with what makes this game great.........the simplicity of the interface.......and the complexity and depth that it provides.

Let the ROE be hashed out by the individual........changing unit capabilities to stop gamey play will cause more harm than good.............

Just my 2 cents.....

Rob