Question on tactics: Assault, assault and assault

[majog]

My humble opinion.

I think the assault thing actually goes back more to pre WWII. A good example is the whole trench warfare thing in WWI where swarms of units rushed the enemy. Post WWI, I feel the only place assualt should be used is in certain battles by the Japanese who continued the dealth by numbers Bonzi rush or when assaulting a bunker or pill box. Another example of a unit that should be able to assult is the NVA in DGVN. After all how many examples do we have of the US assaulting in VN. They were intense fire fights but not 1 instance I can remember did the US go rushing at the NVA like Vikings with their hair on fire.

Playing historically vs to win. Most people on here when they play a scn look to say if I was in Command how would I have done things. Is that historic? Who can say. Why replay it just the way it happened? We already know that outcome. The interesting part is changing that outcome with other tactics or avenues of approach.

The above is the opinion of the author (who has spent much too much time on the beach with scantly clad women rubbing coca butter all over him). They in no way reflect the opinion of the club or other members no matter how wrong they may be, LOL.

Come on guys, lighten up it is just a game.

[Mike Abberton]

I don't think a CS assault is necessarily a banzai charge/human wave type of attack, but simply close quarters fighting. Some examples from WWII:

The famous Easy Company attack on the gun emplacement at Brecourt Manor just after D-Day.

Street fighting in Stalingrad or really just about any close urban combat (or other close terrain like dense woods).

Looking at it another way, the Soviets used large numbers of SMG squads in WWII. The effective range of the SMG was probably something like 100m, much less than a CS hex. The SMG squads were intended to fight up close and personal.

In fact, every combat in WWII that came down to bayonets, pistol fire and H2H fighting would probably be considered an assault for CS purposes.

[majog]

So how does an assault change from close combat? If you argument is that it is just a fire fight does not selecting all stacked units at a time and having them fire do the same thing? If not how is it different? Also in your example why would the units need to move at all to reflect that? Why do then the need to surround a unit first?

[Hawk Kriegsman]

So how does an assault change from close combat? If you argument is that it is just a fire fight does not selecting all stacked units at a time and having them fire do the same thing? If not how is it different? Also in your example why would the units need to move at all to reflect that? Why do then the need to surround a unit first?

Because units get surrounded all the time in warfare!

Large Examples: Bastogne, Stalingrad

Medium Examples: 1st Battalion, 141st Infantry, 36th Infantry, Vosages Mountains October 1944.

2nd Parachute Battalion, 1st British Airborne Arnhem, Sept 1944.

'B' Company of the 2/24th, Rourke's Drift, Natal, South Africa, January 1879.

Small Scale: Every single piece of war footage ever shot showing soldiers emerging from a bunker, house, etc hands raised in surrender

Every single piece of war footage showing a man portable flamethrower being used. The US M2 had a 33 meter range. The German Flammenwerfer 35 had a 30 meter range. Japanese Type 93 & Type 100 had a 30 meter range.

Every single piece of footage showing a soldier throwing a hand grenade. They generally where a 50 meter or less weapon.

For crying out loud I can't believe all the complaining about surrounding units. You don't like getting surrounded then take steps to prevent it.

Again units from the squad to army have gotten surrounded as long as there has been warfare.

Enough already.

Thanx!

Hawk

[majog]

I agree that units get surrounded. But they come out with their hands in the air because the units doing the surrounding are shooting at them not because they are running at them like banshees with their hair on fire. Perhaps a better way to program the assault is that all units assigned for assault shoot at once which multiplies their attack value and then the other unit get killed or dispupted or comes out with their hands up.

Here all that happens is that the opponent waits for a unit to become disrupted then surrounds that unit so it cannot escape and the unit gets killed automatically because a disrupted unit's defense value cannot stand up to a undisrupted unit.

j

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I agree that units get surrounded. But they come out with their hands in the air because the units doing the surrounding are shooting at them not because they are running at them like banshees with their hair on fire.

Yes and that is what the assault simulates. Most troops surrender when someone is up close to them. Not when they are 250 meters away.

Perhaps a better way to program the assault is that all units assigned for assault shoot at once which multiplies their attack value and then the other unit get killed or dispupted or comes out with their hands up.

No, because you have taken out the retreat option then.

Here all that happens is that the opponent waits for a unit to become disrupted then surrounds that unit so it cannot escape and the unit gets killed automatically because a disrupted unit's defense value cannot stand up to a undisrupted unit.

Firstly that's not true. I personally don't wait for the unit to become disrupted. I attempt to surround units whether they are disrupted or not. I am always looking to cut off my foes retreat routes.

There is not a gamer alive who does not try to cut off his foes retreat routes in any game (board, miniature, or computer) that has ZOC's and enemy ZOC retreat penalties.

Secondly, you do not always take a disrupted unit. Most of the time yes. But not always. Just yesterday I had 5 SP's of Mk IVE's fail on an assault against 12 SP of Russian 1941 infantry. Lost 2 SP's to boot!

Thanx!

Hawk

[Mike Abberton]

I agree that units get surrounded. But they come out with their hands in the air because the units doing the surrounding are shooting at them not because they are running at them like banshees with their hair on fire. Perhaps a better way to program the assault is that all units assigned for assault shoot at once which multiplies their attack value and then the other unit get killed or dispupted or comes out with their hands up.

As I said above, I don't consider a CS assault as necessarily a manic charge on an enemy position. I look at an infantry unit's standard attack factors, even at a range of 1 hex, as long/medium distance weaponry, i.e. rifles, light machine guns, small mortars, etc. that are organic/assigned to the platoon. The AF at a range of one includes weapons effective to at least 250 m.

An infantry unit's assault factor is representative of everything they carry and includes, in addition to the items mentioned above, hand grenades, SMGs, pistols, bayonets, swords, rocks, fists, whatever.

Here all that happens is that the opponent waits for a unit to become disrupted then surrounds that unit so it cannot escape and the unit gets killed automatically because a disrupted unit's defense value cannot stand up to a undisrupted unit.

Like Erik, I certainly do not wait until after the units are disrupted to at least begin the surround process. I move units into blocking positions beforehand to pin them in place, then reduce them through fire, then assault. That all seems like standard tactics to me.

I do agree with you that assaults are too much a sure thing. Some people are much better than others, too, at determining the fine line of when an assault will succeed/fail. Because I don't want to take the time to figure out the math, I usually overcommit to the assault to get a good result more often than not. That does mean, though, that I tie up more units than are strictly necessary sometimes.

As I understand it, the original East Front system had much more variable assault results, but Talonsoft changed to the current system due to complaints over the unpredictability of assaults.

[McIvan]

Assault is not a banzai charge. It is simply closing to a range where your fire becomes extremely effective, particularly small arms fire, grenades etc.

"Assault" is an advancing unit putting so much pressure on an enemy unit that it must ultimately either retreat or surrender.

That pressure would nearly always be delivered by brutally effective close range fire rather than rare hand to hand combat.

[majog]

Here is what I have the problem with. The game is set up for a certain number of shots per turn base on the cyclical fire rate of a weapon. That cyclical rate does not change just because it is in an assault. Further taking a stack of units and firing them together affectively achieve what you stated above (remember grenades and small arms etc. are already factored into a units attack strength). Hence my arguement that a assualt should be the combined fire effects of all units in an assault versus just moving into that hex and "pushing a unit out" or overruning it because it is disrupted. Moving into a hex seems like a bonzi charge to me.

Also people are getting hung up on the 250sm thing. There is nothing in any of the programing stating that the unit is on the close or far side of the 250 meters. It is an range and the unit can already be physically right next to the other unit. It is just a measure of space as it is a game. I also agree that units surrounded to keep others from retreating and I have no problem with that. I just have always thought the surround and overrun tactic in the assault a bit very unrealistic. No where is this more evident then in DGVN where the US mobility easily surround the NVA and overruns them as they disrupt easily but just as fast regain their normal status. It would be much more interesting to see the effects of a combined fire effect and what happens to the stacked defender than just overruning them.

[Mike Abberton]

Here is what I have the problem with. The game is set up for a certain number of shots per turn base on the cyclical fire rate of a weapon. That cyclical rate does not change just because it is in an assault.

I am not quite clear if you are saying that assaults do or don't cost enough APs versus regular firing here. And I am not sure that the actual cyclical rate of the weapon is how they calculate firing APs. First of all, since an infantry platoon has a multitude of different weapons, which would you pick? And most straight infantry units have a AP cost of 35 to fire weapons, despite fairly different weapon stats and weapon mixes for the various armies, at least on WWII.

From the rules assaults typically cost more than normal fire since the assault costs the movement rate into the hex plus 20. True RS-style Banzai attacks are the exception which only cost the 20 APs, the hex movement is free. For a non-banzai attack, I assume the movement cost represents moving into the hex, and the 20 AP assault cost represents the actual combat, although it should probably be considered more abstract than that and looked at as a whole not a sequence of two separate actions.

Further taking a stack of units and firing them together affectively achieve what you stated above (remember grenades and small arms etc. are already factored into a units attack strength). Hence my arguement that a assualt should be the combined fire effects of all units in an assault versus just moving into that hex and "pushing a unit out" or overruning it because it is disrupted. Moving into a hex seems like a bonzi charge to me.

I am not really sure if grenades/pistols/flamethrowers are or are not included in the 1 hex range attack strength or not, to be honest. But the assault factor, which is separate from regular attack strength, should definitely include them. The different assault factors for the various units should be meant to represent their flexibility to respond to close attacks.

Also people are getting hung up on the 250sm thing. There is nothing in any of the programing stating that the unit is on the close or far side of the 250 meters. It is an range and the unit can already be physically right next to the other unit. It is just a measure of space as it is a game. I also agree that units surrounded to keep others from retreating and I have no problem with that.

I think most people realize that not all units are clustered in the center of their hex so that all combat between hexes occurs at 250 meters exactly. It's an abstraction, and combat between hexes could be anything from 1 m to 500m. However, I do think there are aspects of facing and position that are related to which hex you are in. The assault represents moving right up to an engaging at close range, even intermingling between enemy and friendly units.

Consider attacking an infantry unit located in trenches or foxholes. Attacking from a distance (maybe less than 250m, but not 10m either), the enemy unit has cover from the trenchs/foxholes, or just hiding behind trees, walls, folds in the ground, etc. To me that is combat at a range of 1 or more.

Then, consider that I work myself into close range, not a Banzai charge but working myself into close range somehow. Finally I get within 10m or so, and now I can throw hand grenades into foxholes, infiltrate the trenches and fire down their length, get men with angles to negate other types of cover. That is an CS assault to me.

It might be more realistic if the assault could be more random in its results or not necessarily be resolved in one turn. In fact, it would be interested if a possible assault result would be that the units involved become "locked in combat" and unable to do anything else until the assault is resolved.

I just have always thought the surround and overrun tactic in the assault a bit very unrealistic. No where is this more evident then in DGVN where the US mobility easily surround the NVA and overruns them as they disrupt easily but just as fast regain their normal status. It would be much more interesting to see the effects of a combined fire effect and what happens to the stacked defender than just overruning them.

I'll admit that I haven't tried DGVN (I can't find my old copy of DG), but it is possible that the game system just isn't set up to depict the realities of the typical combat of Vietnam very well. The game system was designed around medium/large scale land comabt in Europe/Western Asia. The realities of the smaller scale of combat in the denser terrain of Southeast Asia/the Pacific might not be a great fit.

I have been reading Samuel Morrison's History of the US Navy in WWII, and I am realizing that Rising Sun does not do a particularly good job simulating many of the combat realities the US, Commonwealth, Dutch, and Japanese troops faced in the Pacific Theater.

EDIT: By the way, I just wanted to note that, all of the above are my interpretations of the CS games. Not saying I am right or anyone else is wrong, just presenting my views on the concept. So hopefully no hard feelings for anyone. :)