Assaulting

[Lien Leposh]

I have noticed in a game I have been playing that when I have been assaulting an isolated enemy unit i can virtually predict the enemy losses.
For example in the first assault the enemy infantry unit lost 240 men
In the 2nd it lost approx 120 men
In the 3rd it lost around 60 men
Anyone care to guess what the 4th assault took in losses?:chin:
It gets to the point that I know how many assaults I will need to eliminate a unit once I have the results of the first assault. Maybe I ought to be grateful for this as I can plan accordnigly and move some of my adjacent battalions away to continue the battle elsewhere...

My attacking infantry battalions were all of similar strength and ability and yet my logic tells me that the improved odds ought to give better results not worse results in my favour as I keep assaulting.
Have I missed something?:)

[Steel God]

You observe correctly.

Once you have a stack disrupted and cut off so that it can not retreat, you will capture roughly half of the tack in prisoners with every successful assault ASSUMING you have sufficient odds. If you lack sufficient odds your attack could fail or you could get less than half.

[Lien Leposh]

You observe correctly.

Once you have a stack disrupted and cut off so that it can not retreat, you will capture roughly half of the tack in prisoners with every successful assault ASSUMING you have sufficient odds. If you lack sufficient odds your attack could fail or you could get less than half.

Is there any way of improving the loss rate, eg using such large odds that I can mop up much faster or am I stuck with the above?

Worth asking I guess!
Cheers
Neil

[Ricky B]

Yes, the more you assault with in one turn, the more losses the defenders will take - but overall you will "end" the battle more quickly by attacking with the smallest portion of your force that should succeed in the assault. In other words, the defenders will always lose half their strength if your assault succeeds, plus whatever losses are caused by the assault resolution. Say a battalion might kill 15 men with its assault, plus the defenders lose half of their strength. Assault with 3 battalions and the defenders might lose 45 men plus half their strength. So for a 600 man defender, the extra 30 men are a small number compared to the 300 or so lost from surrender, quicker to just plan on separate assaults than to try and overwhelm the defender in one assault, until the strength drops below 100 maybe.

If I have battalions that can break down into companies, I always try to assault with a strength equal to at least half the disrupted defender strength, or if the first assault I will hit a battalion with at least 2 companies that are in good shape.

[Steel God]

You can also play with the optional surrender rule, which stipulates that broken units which are assaulted and can not retreat surrender entirely.

That optional rule was put in per player request, but the designers intent from the very beginning is that rounding up prisoners (which the assault situations you are describing can be likened to) takes time and that's what the multiple assaults abstractly represent.

[Glenn Saunders]

... but the designers intent from the very beginning is that rounding up prisoners (which the assault situations you are describing can be likened to) takes time and that's what the multiple assaults abstractly represent.

Exactly - this was first hand experience from Maj Greg 'Sturmer' Smith at the gulf war. Sturmer work with Tiller on the first title where many of the game basics were worked out.

As for the comments on the losses dropping predicably 240, 120, 60 ect, this is not something that you could repeat - each attack is a die roll and the results do NOT in any way relate to the previous attack on the same hex or some other hex for that matter.

Glenn

[Lien Leposh]

[/quote]

Exactly - this was first hand experience from Maj Greg 'Sturmer' Smith at the gulf war. Sturmer work with Tiller on the first title where many of the game basics were worked out.

As for the comments on the losses dropping predicably 240, 120, 60 ect, this is not something that you could repeat - each attack is a die roll and the results do NOT in any way relate to the previous attack on the same hex or some other hex for that matter.

Glenn
[/quote]

Yeah I recognised that losses arent exactly half, but still gives roughly half. The general statement of overall effect held true though, as bourne out by the answers above.
Ricky B has succinctly clarified what I had formulated in my mind about the process I will use in future.
Thanks everyone for your help.
Ian beware!;)

[Glenn Saunders]

The general statement of overall effect held true though, as bourne out by the answers above.

Well - we'll agree to disagree on this one - answers above not withstanding.

The losses are the result of a die roll - sometimes you roll good, sometimes you roll not so good. If the unit is not completely depleted or on its last legs I am sure there are many times when the second roll will kill more than the first die roll.

If you care to discuss it further lets look at a BTL file so were on the same page because I would say there could be cases or a case where what you are saying could happen - but in general, if you roll a die three times against a unit which is reducing in size, then there will be plenty of cases where the losses don't perform as you discribe.

Glenn

[Ricky B]

Hi Glenn,

I responded on the basis that Lien's comments are based on a situation where the defender is disrupted, or disrupts from the first assault, and is unable to retreat. It has to be the case for his situation as there is no other way as you say for the losses to progress as stated. So you have a disrupted defender, it will lose half its strength each time it is assaulted, as long as all attacking units do not disrupt, plus whatever losses are caused by the assault losses. Thus, the next assault will be against basically half the strength of the prior assault, and result in half the losses -hence the losses going 120/60/30 (approximately). So all is okay, and no need to delve deeper into this, it is working as it should, just not all the facts of the situation laid out.

Of course, if any of my assumptions are wrong - disrupted defender after the first assault or unable to retreat, then the situation won't happen unless some unknown bug, but I am sure that is what is happening in Lien's post, even if not stated. Has to be that - never seen it any other way.

Rick

[Steel God]

Yes, I also assumed we were taking about assaulting already disrupted units with no retreat route, otherwise you wouldn't get those results.