Question on Alternative Assault Resolution

[TJD]

I'd like to ask for help in understanding Alternative Assault Resolution. As I understand it, the rule requires that a unit's hard attack value must be used when attacking hard targets like bunkers and armored vehicles. I can understand the value of this rule in the context of infantry vs. armor. But it seems to make less sense in the case of infantry vs. Bunkers. Case in point:

I'm playing the _ALT version of Troina in Sicily 43. There is a bunker in that city. The city's defensive values are such that artillery fire is of almost no value against units in that bunker = -%50 for city, -%40 for bunker, +10. The only way therefore to disrupt the German defenders is by assaulting them. (Ordinarily, I would never assault undisrupted defenders, especially high-quality Germans, but as artillery is practically useless there seems no other way forward.) But when the Hard Attack values are used per the alternative rule, the American infantry and even Engineers are almost impotent: the have HA of 1 and 3 respectively, when their normal Assault values are 12 or 14. Even when the German units have been surrounded and had their morale lowered by Isolation and Low Ammo, I'm pretty sure assaults against them will get nowhere with these values.

So how does one take a bunker when this rule is in effect? It seems like an incredible handicap. Am I not understanding the math correctly?

Thanks!

Tim

[raizer]

you are right on the math. If you need the hex, as it could be a vp location...isolate it then pound away on it...hit it at night just to fatigue it. Then start assaulting. If its isolated, it'll go low ammo. So A quality germans are now C class.

If its a bunker on a supply source you got your work cut out for you-you will certainly have to give it a retreat hex as it wont be isolated. But it'll be a low supply hex (hopefully) and it will go low ammo if its a low supply source, and it wont have its HQ influencing it (hopefully not in the same hex) and since you have it surrounded, its HQ wont help it, just win one assault and it will retreat, provided you gave the unit a lane out.

If you don't need the hex, leave it alone or if you want it just keep assaulting once its isolated, eventually you will get all those guys in the bunker as prisoners.

And your assaults wont be useless, they will hurt that unit, drive up its fatigue and expend its ammo-they will be costly but not useless. Hell, I think Ive cleared about 20 bunkers in an ongoing game-now its A and B qual vs D and C qual russians but its the same premise. Isolate, bang away and keep banging away-eventually it will fall.

[Mr Grumpy]

I agree, it is the same when you try to take the bunkers in Hellfire Pass in the T41 Battleaxe alt scenario, when i was the CW player it seemed there was no hope of taking them, but when i was the Axis i could see the effects of the CW player chipping away at my units fatigue.

However if the hex has a reasonable value supply source and you are short on turns then it might be worth bypassing if that is an option?

I just looked at the scenario and i am guessing it is the 300vp hex you are trying to take, as it is not a supply source if you can isolate it then any German A units will be straight down to C, try to mass all your Stuart and AT units into one stack to give you a maximum hard attack option and turn every 155 arty unit on it and see if you can cause any casualties that way?

But i agree, very tough cookie.

[TJD]

I just looked at the scenario and i am guessing it is the 300vp hex you are trying to take, as it is not a supply source if you can isolate it then any German A units will be straight down to C, try to mass all your Stuart and AT units into one stack to give you a maximum hard attack option and turn every 155 arty unit on it and see if you can cause any casualties that way?

But i agree, very tough cookie.

Yes, you're right, it's Troina, the 300pt VP hex. I have had it isolated for several turns so I'm sure the Germans are at least at level C morale. I have my Stuarts en route and am planning to try exactly the tactic you suggest but time is very short here.

The larger question though is whether this is really a good rule to use in the context of bunkers. I can see that the Alternative Assault prevents infantry from turning into big tank busters. But bunkers are a different sort of beast.

Thanks!

Tim

[Liquid_Sky]

Bunkers take a little prep work in order to take them. You cannot just waltz up and capture them with a couple of hasty assaults. Usually assault teams specially trained would deal with them.

What sometimes annoys me is that these specially trained assault teams (engineers) have lower AT values then the infantry. In Normandy, the AVRE's have hard attack 0 and so cant even attack a bunker...its intended purpose!

I suspect that the designers never thought about it, instead thinking that hard attack is ONLY vrs tanks

[Ricky B]

Tim, the default rules for Sicily do NOT include alt assault, and what you are seeing is one of the big reasons most of us recommend sticking to the default fire and assault rules. For Moscow '42, I think the original default rules for testing included alt assault, but the bunkers were very tough to crack that way, near impossible, for the same reason you are seeing here. So stick to the default assault rules in general - too later here so follow the advice above.

Rick

[Strela]

You should absolutely continue to fire artillery at bunkers and hard targets due to the following rule. I have seen units disrupt in bunkers with a no effect!!

Special Disruption Rules
As a result of being fired upon, the target unit may have to take a morale check
to determine its Disruption and Broken status as described in the section on
Combat Results. There are some modifiers to this effect:
• When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard vehicles or
units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption effect is twice
that of normal. For hard vehicles, this is the effect of causing them to
"button up" and thus have reduced effectiveness. For hard fortifications,
this is a result of the "pounding" that results on the fortifications and the
disruptive effect this has on the occupants.

[raizer]

thats right x2 chance to flip to D...so your germans will go to D level morale, once isolated, low ammo and disrupted-thats when you bag the prisoners.

One more thing-if time is short, give the enemy unit a lane out of the bunker. You can back off, still keep it isolated but leave an exit hex not in any one ZOC and you might push it out, and take the hex instead of bagging prisoners for a couple of turns.

[TJD]

You should absolutely continue to fire artillery at bunkers and hard targets due to the following rule. I have seen units disrupt in bunkers with a no effect!!

Special Disruption Rules
As a result of being fired upon, the target unit may have to take a morale check
to determine its Disruption and Broken status as described in the section on
Combat Results. There are some modifiers to this effect:
• When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard vehicles or
units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption effect is twice
that of normal. For hard vehicles, this is the effect of causing them to
"button up" and thus have reduced effectiveness. For hard fortifications,
this is a result of the "pounding" that results on the fortifications and the
disruptive effect this has on the occupants.

Thanks, Strela! That's truly helpful. So I guess "No Effect" doesn't always mean "No Effect" after all. Hmm.

I'm pretty good about reading manuals but I have to say that paragraph went right by me.

I've learned a lot in this thread. Thanks, everyone.

Obviously I'm in Ricky B's camp and will stick to the original assault rules whenever possible. While it may be mathematically possible, as Foul and others believe, to succeed with the alternative rule, the added cost in time, manpower, and tedium seems really excessive, and to no great benefit that I can see in terms of the quality of gameplay.

I'm speaking only in the context of bunkers. I get the armor aspect of the alternative rule. Can't the alt rule be modified to differentiate between bunkers and armor? Shouldn't it? Or is that the sort of foolish suggestion only a novice player like me would make?

Thanks!

Tim

[raizer]

depends on who is attacking, length of game, etc. I think soviets, in a LONG game, defending in bunkers against Full up, A qual Großdeutschland pios, and other A qual Pz grens, need the alt assault resolution just to keep them alive a bit longer, otherwise they are just manbags and very small speed bumps to the krauts.

this thread is not in reference to a pbem game is it ? lol ;-)