Alternative Assault Resolution qualms

[beldurax]

Recently, while playing the Utah scenario (Night Drop) from Normandy 44, I encountered a bit of weirdness, for lack of a better term.  One of the default rules for the scenario that was checked, that I eventually figured out was the bugaboo for the weirdness, was Alternative Assault Resolution.  The behaviour that was occurring was this: all of my U.S. paras would attempt assaults, some at overwhelming odds in their favour, but still the result of the assault was practically nothing.  I scratched my head in puzzlement, until I came across the Gold Design Notes for France 40 where Alternative Assault Resolution was explained.  It then made sense.  I then restarted the scenario with this option off, and assault then were resolved as they should be according to who was attacking who (i.e.  100 paras assaulting 12 German garrison troops succeeded in their assault).

So, my underlying question is, why were the Alternate rules enabled in the first place ?

Thanks, Travis

[bwv]

I may be wrong, but thought the option was to discourage cheating in PBEM games - restarting a save game on a low probability assault until it works

[Fortynslow]

My understanding is that the alternate assault rules exist to better model anti tank ability of infantry vs hard targets. For example, Soviet Infantry in 41 have a high assault value but a low anti tank value. With alternate assault resolution when infantry assaults tanks or other hard targets like pillboxes or bunkers, the hard target attack value is used to resolve the assault instead of the assault value to better represent reality. In the example above, I suspect the German infantry were in a bunker or pillbox. It is very common in Normandy, when assaulting bunkers and such, for there to be little apparent effect even on an apparently lopsided assault. Until all units in the bunker are disrupted, it is going to be difficult to dig them out. Even if they were in woods in a trench, on a poor roll, there may be only a few casualties, and if the defender passes their morale check, you might only see a fatigue effect.

[beldurax]

My understanding is that the alternate assault rules exist to better model anti tank ability of infantry vs hard targets.  For example, Soviet Infantry in 41 have a high assault value but a low anti tank value.  With alternate assault resolution when infantry assaults tanks or other hard targets like pillboxes or bunkers, the hard target attack value is used to resolve the assault instead of the assault value to better represent reality.  In the example above, I suspect the German infantry were in a bunker or pillbox.  It is very common in Normandy, when assaulting bunkers and such, for there to be little apparent effect even on an apparently lopsided assault.  Until all units in the bunker are disrupted, it is going to be difficult to dig them out.  Even if they were in woods in a trench, on a poor roll, there may be only a few casualties, and if the defender passes their morale check, you might only see a fatigue effect.

Cool, thanks, this really sheds some light as to why this option was on by default for the Utah scenario.  Thanks so much !  Travis