Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?

[panzerde]

Can you tell us the approach you used in a scenario that has Trenches, no bunkers. Artillery and Mortars had no effect in Clipping the Hedges - Hill 285 and I played the scenario 4 times. Artillery was useless but I did use tanks and infantry together. Won it on 4th attempt I will admit.

I've yet to play that one, but here are a few things I've found that help a great deal with trenches:

1. Use concentrated direct fire from tanks and AT guns that are at least two hexes away, but usually no more than four hexes away. By "concentrated" I mean I usually throw an entire squadron/company of tanks at a single trench hex. HMG companies are also useful against trenches from a couple hexes away, though they will take about as many casualties as they inflict. LMGs can be useful, but only if there's no direct-fire reducing terrain (see below).
   
2. Keep your rifle companies behind the tanks until you have reduced the defensive capabilities of the target trench hex. If possible, keep them in terrain where they can't be seen, or at least have some cover.
   
3. I like to break up my rifle companies that aren't assaulting into platoons, and keep no more than two in one hex, usually. That way if they take fire, you will usually only get a single platoon to disrupt and not the entire company. The remaining platoons can continue to advance together if moving to attack.
   
4. Don't leave rifle companies adjacent to dug-in defenders for multiple turns. They'll just take casualties and lose fatigue and morale to the point where they are useless in the assault.
   
5. Understand that you are probably not going to disrupt A/B morale troops in trenches (or bunkers) with direct fire most of the time. You can, however, reduce their numbers to single digits in a few turns and lower their morale by at least one level. Their fatigue will also probably be yellow. 
   
6. Try and hit the reduced trench (or bunker!) with as close to two full rifle companies as you can. If you can add engineers, great. Specialized assault tanks like AVREs and Churchill Crocs can be helpful. I'm not yet convinced that regular tanks in an assault are worth the potential vehicle loss. I need to experiment more.
   
7. Be very, very very aware of the terrain/hexside penalties versus direct fire. Take a look at the Kraut Corner hex in the Hill 192 scenario, for example. Between being entrenched (-30%), in grass (-5%) behind hedgerows (-50%) and at a higher elevation (-15%) the combined impact on direct fire from any hex north of the objective is -100%! You can sit there all day and fire on that hex and you will never so much as scratch a single defender. 
   
8. If you can bypass a defensive position, do so. Flank the enemy, don't beat your head against them if you don't need to. Properly executed this leaves them isolated and easier to deal with. They may even retreat on their own.
   
9. Mortars are not terribly useful against trenches, but field/medium/heavy guns can cause some casualties and fatigue. It won't be anything like what artillery can do to units in the open, but that steady attack each turn does contribute to reducing numbers in concert with direct fire.
   
10. If you have it, use smoke to block off LOS to your target hex from nearby defenders and screen your HMG, AT Gun, and infantry from retaliatory fire from surrounding hexes. I never have enough smoke. I would fire a ton of it every turn if I had it. 
    
11. If you can isolate the target hex with ZOCs it's worth it, as long as you leave a retreat path for the defenders. The reduction in defender morale is worth it, but they have to be able to retreat or they will stay there and fight it out. Once through the defensive line, it becomes easier to isolate other positions.
    

Again, I'm not that great a player, and these are just the things I've worked out myself and learned from reading posts by others. YMMV and I may well have some wrong assumptions here. I'd be interested to hear from others using these and similar tactics.

[wiggum]

Great stuff panzerde, thanks !

[Ricky B]

One additional thought. Generally limit your assaults to units at the same morale level. The assault calc uses the lowest morale of the attacking units.

[panzerde]

One additional thought. Generally limit your assaults to units at the same morale level. The assault calc uses the lowest morale of the attacking units.

Oh, that's an important point! I hadn't quite twigged to that yet. Thanks!

[wiggum]

Whats a bigger factor for a assault ?
The Assault value or the Moral ?

If i have lower moral units with a higher assault value, should i still use them for a assault or the ones with lower assault value and higher moral ?

[GerryM]

Thanks very much panzerde for the tips.

I had my tanks 2 hexes away but only have 2 sets of 3 tanks so maybe that is not owerful enough?

Also I put my infantry adjacent to the VL to try and get as much firepower as possible. I will try leaving infantry back next time.

[Ricky B]

Whats a bigger factor for a assault ?
The Assault value or the Moral ?

If i have lower moral units with a higher assault value, should i still use them for a assault or the ones with lower assault value and higher moral ?

Try different ways and see what seems to work. But I would suggest not combining the two groups, even if it leaves the units well below the max limit. So assault with the high assault/low morale set first, maybe, and then the other. That avoids the penalty of the high morale units also being stuck with the lower morale effects, on top of lower assault value.

[phoenix]

Very helpful, panzerde! I think especially the stuff about the terrain modifiers, which I hadn't properly worked out at all. Many thanks.

There are some great tips coming in this thread now.

Peter

[Chris Merchant]

And just a quick bit of feedback - having a blast with the game so far, well done team.  Having come from a Campaign Series background I have to say that the game is very well researched and balanced from the games against ai that I've played so far.


I think it would be an injustice to the series to reduce complexity - I believe that detail and complexity is the 'brand' and sets itself apart from a lot of simpler sims/games .  Some tasks were difficult to achieve, so it should be in the game as well. 

Thanks for continued development, will certainly support in the future.

cheers chris

[Strela]

And just a quick bit of feedback - having a blast with the game so far, well done team.  Having come from a Campaign Series background I have to say that the game is very well researched and balanced from the games against ai that I've played so far.


I think it would be an injustice to the series to reduce complexity - I believe that detail and complexity is the 'brand' and sets itself apart from a lot of simpler sims/games .  Some tasks were difficult to achieve, so it should be in the game as well. 

Thanks for continued development, will certainly support in the future.

cheers chris

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the support and commentary. It's interesting you mention research. Most of the time we have managed to get historical results without dumbing down the detail or values. This has more than justified a continuation of a historical approach.

I've held off posting for the last couple of days as that has bought a few more people out of the woodwork to comment on their experiences (great to see you here Panzerde/Doug!!!) - everyone comments whether positive or negative are noted and we have a clear work list for the first patch.

As mentioned in a previous thread the game is a commercial success and John is very pleased with the work coming out of his active teams - particularly ourselves and Ed William's FWWC series. I continue to hope you will all see what we intended to achieve with the game series, now and going forward.

David

PS Yes, work has started on the patch and further titles...!