Question on Alternative Assault Resolution

[Liquid_Sky]

Good practice is to play the alt Normandy campaign and try and get off Omaha.

Things I learned from that:

If I assault with over 1000 guys against less then 200...even if the odds are only 1:1 because I am using my Hard attack value vrs his assault value, losses will be disproportionally high vrs his units as he has less to lose. And he can't inflict that much in the way of casualties as he is small.

Typically I will see 20 men/10 men. My 20 men loss will be spread over multiple units, whereas his 10 men loss will be concentrated on one (or two). As a result, his fatigue loss will be greater.

If you can assault multiple times, even better. Build up that fatigue.

AT guns are your friends....they really should be called AB guns (anti-bunker). I find that they are hard to use against tanks (who can just drive away from them), but bunkers can't move . Just dig in next to the bunker, bring in a stack of guns, and unleash the pain.

Of course, campaign games make it easier..as you can pull in these assets from all over the front. In a scenario, you will be limited by time, and may have to avoid taking difficult hexes in favour of killing his units for vp's.

[Volcano Man]

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.

True, but this all goes hand-in-hand. With the Alt values over the default ones, then typically hard attack strengths and assault strengths will be higher. So, your chipping away power should be greater, but your ability to take the hex by a coup de main is weakened, which means more preparation is necessary. Anyway, just saying: one choice doesn't come without a consequence somewhere else.

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.

Personally, I say yes, because the answer to the bunkers is not assault, rather it is hard attack firepower THEN assault. This is true both with and without the Alt assault resolution (AAR) rule. For the most part though, tanks are better in assault against unprotected infantry with AAR on, so it makes sense to me that infantry dug in in bunker and pillbox hexes require careful, thorough, deliberate and abundant preparation to dislodge, and even then it will be bloody for the attacker. Otherwise, I feel that the defender can never really hold anything indefinitely in PzC otherwise, that is to say, with these rules off in the stock game then I always feel that the defender has the short end of the stick when it comes to holding ground (it becomes impossible really). But that is just my opinion. ;) Now of course it isn't such a great idea to have AAR on if the scenario is six turns or less -- unless the scenario was specifically balanced that way (Omaha_Alt was, however).

[Mr Grumpy]

Thanks for finding that special disruption "arty pounding" rule David, i did look for it but could not find it in the time i had, it was this very rule that made it possible to take the bunkers in Battleaxe alt.

[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.

True, but this all goes hand-in-hand. With the Alt values over the default ones, then typically hard attack strengths and assault strengths will be higher. So, your chipping away power should be greater, but your ability to take the hex by a coup de main is weakened, which means more preparation is necessary. Anyway, just saying: one choice doesn't come without a consequence somewhere else.

Exactly, Ed, your values are designed (or not but that is how they work anyway) to work with the alt assault rules so it balances things. But play Kharkov '42 campaign with the alt fire and assault rules and the Soviet player has at best a minimal chance of breaking into the German bunker line. Had a Soviet opponent suggest just that many years ago and we quit after about 15 turns as the attack had broken down (losses were horrendous and most attacking Soviets, even Guards, were disrupted) with no more than a couple of bunkers lost. But tweak the values used for the rules being used and the fight can be very interesting, going either direction.

Rick

[Liquid_Sky]

I played the alt version of Kharkov '42. And Stalingrad '42 for that matter.

The only way I got through the bunkers was to drive multiple tanks up adjacent and fire. Once I popped one or two, it became easier as I could outflank and isolate the next bunkers. Those ones I took down with AT guns. It certainly took a while to do, probably longer then it should have, but it did work.

Then the southern German Panzer Army unleashed and I ended up with a couple rather large pockets.

Stalingrad '42 was easier as the defenders could usually put only one guy per bunker. And then it is just a matter of time before artillery/AT guns/AFV's disrupt the defender. And again..once you pop a couple, the rest become outflanked (outflunk?).

I just started a Stalingrad '42 campaign and we are using the default game with default rules. I have to say that taking out the Romanian bunkers is quite easy when you are used to the alt rules.
Turn 3 and there are some gaping holes in the line.

---

My recipe for taking a bunker:

Drive a pile of tanks adjacent to the bunker. Park all AA assets you have behind them (out of sight if possible and in range of the tanks). Have the light tanks dig a trench.

When you have a trench, bring up the infantry. Assault bunker. Replace disrupted units with fresh infantry.

Once through, move on to the bunkers on the side of it. Kill Germans in the open beside bunker until he is convinced it is a bad idea to be adjacent to the bunker. Isolate bunker. Dig trench (or use the evacuated German one, if he made one for you) and move in AT guns. The tanks should be moving forwardish to kill units in non bunker hexes near by.

Since each German company is worth around 15-20 vp's, he may get wise and decide to rather back up slowly and fight a withdrawal to prepared trenches....rather then lose them to isolation and easy assault death once disrupted.

The main thing is to not try and hit every bunker at once with infantry. Only hit the ones where you have Tank/AT Gun support.

[Ricky B]

Good summary on bunkers! And to clarify my post, if anyone misunderstood, this was in the days before the VM alt versions and ratings. It was the standard campaign, played with the alt fire and assault rules, and it was basically pure slaughter.

[TJD]

True, but this all goes hand-in-hand. With the Alt values over the default ones, then typically hard attack strengths and assault strengths will be higher. So, your chipping away power should be greater,

Exactly, Ed, your values are designed (or not but that is how they work anyway) to work with the alt assault rules so it balances things.

Referencing again the Troina scenario, it's worth noting that the Hard Attack values for infantry and engineers are actually much higher in the default scenario than in the Alt version. In the Default version, Infantry and Engineer are 4 and 5 respectively; in the Alt, they are 1 and 3. So the balancing that you refer to, Rick, doesn't seem to occur in this scenario, and what Volcano Man calls a higher "chipping away power" in the Alt values is actually markedly less in this instance.

I realize that Volcano Man says that these values would only "typically" be higher in the Alt version, so perhaps Troina is a one-off. I'm curious why it is. Is it WAD?

Thanks!

Tim

[Volcano Man]

Well, no, I never said that the chipping away power in regards to infantry was higher -- I was referring to tanks and anti-tank guns (which I don't think there is many of either in the Troina scenario). I don't think you could utilize the infantry to shoot and disrupt units in bunkers to any good effect in the stock game, regardless of the values, at least not that I am aware of anyway. Also, what usually differs higher in regards to the infantry in the _Alt over stock game is the assault ratings.

In regards to Kharkov '42_Alt, well, if anyone has suggestions there then I am all ears. The problem is that the _Alt strives for a minimalistic approach so it simply changes the unit values and the stock scenarios are left alone (at least at first). So usually, yes, the scenarios are not always in balance because to compensate for the lack of defender ability to hold ground in the stock game, this usually meant the liberal placement of bunkers in a scenario, amongst other things. It might require something simple to set things right, like changing BUNKER hexes to Bunker, and changing Bunker to TRENCH. Like I said, I am open to suggestions. ;)

However, specifically in the case of Troina_Alt, I will lower the BUNKER to a Bunker, no problem. I do believe this is a case of the Germans being spread thin in this scenario, and they historically gave a good fight over Troina so the town needed to be a BUNKER in the stock game to allow that. In the case of the _Alt, they can put up enough of a fight now so it can be reduced. This makes sense too, because if you look at the stock game the fortification in Troina is already a Bunker. ;)

[Gordons HQ]

VM for what it's worth here is my take on the game I am playing against a very good opponent.
I would be careful with altering this scenario as there are 550 points available for the Allies to capture without taking this bunker complex and that equates to a marginal victory.
A draw in my opinion is easily obtainable for the Allies and a marginal should be within the reach of most decent players as indeed it looks like it will turn out to be in my game.
As previously pointed out historically the Axis put up a good fight here.
I would say that any of the above victory conditions the Allies were to achieve in the game here would be a fair reflection of the historical event given the force and terrain they were facing.
I know this is a difficult one but altering the scenario in the way described may totally unbalance it.

Gordon

[Volcano Man]

VM for what it's worth here is my take on the game I am playing against a very good opponent.
I would be careful with altering this scenario as there are 550 points available for the Allies to capture without taking this bunker complex and that equates to a marginal victory.
A draw in my opinion is easily obtainable for the Allies and a marginal should be within the reach of most decent players as indeed it looks like it will turn out to be in my game.
As previously pointed out historically the Axis put up a good fight here.
I would say that any of the above victory conditions the Allies were to achieve in the game here would be a fair reflection of the historical event given the force and terrain they were facing.
I know this is a difficult one but altering the scenario in the way described may totally unbalance it.

Ok, thanks for the feedback -- it is noted. :)