AMBUSH Feature needed

HirooOnoda · 07-26-2007, 01:03 AM,

This series needs an "ambush" feature.

Units which are dug-in and unsighted should inflict proportionally higher casualties on units which "bump" into said "hidden" units.

The ability of a unit to inflict an ambush could be dependent upon the moral of the ambushing unit also.

Ideas?

Aaron · (This post was last modified: 07-26-2007, 01:14 AM by Aaron.)

Not sure but it might do that already, it does let u fire first (sometimes 3 times) and im not sure if the odds r greater. But i dont find anything wrong with the way it is.

Aaron

shortreengage · 07-26-2007, 01:50 AM,

Idea interesting !
But if it is difficult to make in game it is possible and to forget.

It is how much probable to make such large military divisions an ambush?
It for small groups (1-30 soldier or a little Vechicles).

HirooOnoda · 07-26-2007, 01:55 AM,

Epo,

Agreed, the chance of ambush could be greater the smaller the ambushing unit-such as a Spetnaz unit or Partisan.

I think units move way too fast in enemy territory. This will make them think twice.

Sgt Fury · 07-26-2007, 03:49 AM,

AT Guns have double disrupting effect which in a way represents their ambushing modus operendi.

Fury

FLG · 07-26-2007, 05:18 AM,

Sgt Fury Wrote:AT Guns have double disrupting effect which in a way represents their ambushing modus operendi.

Fury

I can see what your getting at but in a much more literal sense, from the users manual

When towed anti-tank guns or towed heavy AA guns fire on a hard vehicle, the disruption effect is twice that of normal. This effect is based on the fact that they guns are deployed in fixed locations and as a result have increased accuracy as opposed to mobile guns which are firing on the move.

I am not sure the game needs ambush. I agree that the scale of the game is possibly above the need for a special ambush rule. On top of that there are many ways to ensure pain is forthcoming to an unwary unit advancing blindly. A few examples

Unaware units may well be in travel mode and we know how bad that can be. Even with reserved movement, if you blindly walk into an enemy unit you have a good chance of being disrupted before you can deploy.

You can also set-up in positions such that advancing units crossing an obstacle may not have the movement left to retreat or put down significant fire. And if your guys were unspotted to begin with he may not have saved support fire or have sufficient reserves to help pull his can out of the fire before a good mauling is dished out.

Hiding a couple of units on the flanks and putting one on the nose, say such that it's ZOC covers a road, etc. When an enemy runs into your centre force your guys step in from the flanks and, if the enemy unit isn't supported, he is surrounded.

Of course you should be able to avoid most of these traps by using recon and having your forces advance it tidy order. But isn't that the case for the real life ambush of regimental size units and above.

HirooOnoda · 07-26-2007, 05:30 AM,

I see no reason to try it out. Right now, SPETZNAZ units are there to just DIE. Partisans do almost no damage when they have a unit in "T" mode move adjacent to them.

The "disruptive" affects short-change the smaller units, which in reality would be able to inflict agregeous losses on some unit strolling around in T-mode far behidn the MLR.

CptCav · 07-26-2007, 06:20 AM,

In a MC game that I am playing, I had a WarPac tank battalion and MRB traveling down a highway in travel mode and they were ambushed! Two M1 battalions and two attack helicopter units, previously unseen, engaged the WarPac units with defensive fire at a two hex range. The results were horrific. The TkB suffered approximately 50% losses and went into the red fatigue. The MRB suffered over 50% losses and was broken.

So, ambushes do happen.

However, what I would like to see is a bonus given to defensive fire depending on the level of preparedness. For example, a unit in improved position would get a 10-20% increase and one in entrenched positions would get a 20-40% bonus (note, that the bonuses for IP and entrenched units are the same as the detriment for being shot at). This would represent the effort put into preparing fire plans, clearing zones of fire, registering fire, etc. Right now, the advantages generally lie with the attacker, more value should be placed on units defending. As it is now, the attacker does not need to have the generally accepted 3-to-1 odds to defeat a defending unit. :boom2: In game terms, you just need to have a simple superiority to generally win an engagement.:2guns:

Regards,
CptCav