Extreme Assault Clarification

[Crossroads]

I like my EA=OFF every now and then, remind me of the good old Avalon Hill Panzerblitz and Panzer Leader cardboard games I grew up with :)

But let us try and keep this thread about discussing tactics, I definitively would be interested to learn what has worked vs what has not worked with EA.

I was quite astonished to find out about the success rate for taking Arracourt. I have no idea what strength the GIs were, though.

But as it stands, it seems it was actually easier to take the town hex with EA?

[von Manstein]

Lets take defend of Westerplatte in September 1939 for example. 220 men should keep up for 12 hours (120 turns). They was defending for 7 days (1680 turns) on area of less than half of square kilometre. They had one 75mm gun, two 37mm AT guns, four 81mm mortars, about 40 LMG and 17 HMG.

Germans had 1500 man, eight 150mm guns, four 210mm mortars, four 280mm naval guns (on Schleswig-Holstein dreadnought), few 105mm guns on torpedo-boats and 60 JU-87.

Losses: 20 killed and about 50 wounded Polish soldiers. German losses: more than 300 killed and 600-700 wounded (100-120 after first day of fighting).

I don’t think that anyone could defend so long (1680 turns) even with EA on :smoke:

---

Maybe with new optional rule: DPS (Desperate Polish Soldiers)? ;)

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Hello All,

As Petri pointed out he was able to take my units out in Arracourt and not all of them were disrupted.

Assults work very much like the original EF game.

Not all defenders need to be disrupted in order to have success.

In fact EA makes engineer units (especially the ones with a crap hard attack factor) actually valuable against pillboxes. The can't damage the units inside the pillbox (crap hard attack factor) but the can assult them into submission.

For an example of this please play the scenario Big Bully
The Albanians have a numer of pillboxes with high morale units inside. The only way for the Italians to have success is to assault, assault and assault again.

Other units that are much more valuable with EA are Russian SMG's and Japanese infanty. Their very high assault factors really shine with EA verses non EA where most any assault factor takes out disrupted units.

Also armor (especially low assault factor ones) are very vulnerable when in city type hexes. Units with a decent assault factor can take out armor by assaulting verses shooting. And high assault units with no hard attack (like Russian SMG's) can cause havoc on main battle tanks that are in city type hexes.

And finally to Huib and Ed: Grow up.
You two don't like each other. Fine we get it.
Huib in this thread and the one on Customer Scenario Spotlight you jumped on Ed for giving his opinion. He did not attack or mention you in any way.
I am actually disappointed with the moderators for not removing your attagonistic posts.
And Ed I think you should strive to rise above responding to Huib's juvenile posts directed in your direction. You may also want to calm down a bit with people like Petri. There may be no kinder, well meaning person on the boards then Petri. His posts are nothing more than trying to learn. In this thread you jumped on him. Lighten up a bit, not everyone is attacking you.

God, seriously you two enough.

Anyways I like EA.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Jason Petho]

There is always that final luck roll in the formula?
And, it makes me look forward to those "hero: units. :kill:

This was the point of posting this thread, to explain that the final "luck" roll is actually performed before the final morale check. The "luck" roll will determine if the overall morale is increased or reduced for the defender.

The final morale check will always supercede the "luck" roll.

I don't believe that was explained correctly before.

Jason Petho

[Otto von Blotto]

It makes more sense this way round, I'm glad that this is the way it actually works as I could never tell from the results.

I'm still not a huge fan of EA, but was never a huge fan of the way it was before as well (I know I'm just an awkward cuss), I will play both rules happily I'm just not be overly content with either and think there must be something better.

Although going back to von Manstein post

Let ask to yourself a question: what is more annoying, trying to assault several times to be successful or watch like fast moving units are assaulting and capture your units after just only disrupting them once?

Answer is quite simple for me.

Me too I have been much more frustrated with my assaults that I feel could and should have worked that let me down than I ever have been about what my opponent did during their turn.

[Crossroads]

Here's the assault explanation document from the manual folder. I re-read it, and while it still makes my head spin :chin:, I sort of "get" the logic behind the repeated assaults strategy. I try to set up a series of 1:1 assaults (or slightly better) instead of the definitive 3:1 assault I grew up with the cardboard games.

I marked with bold some points I try to remember, as trying to keep all this inside my head is way too much, at least for me. :smoke:

Essentially, when a hex full of units is attacked by an assaulting force, the game takes count of all the factors of the attacker vs all the factors in the defending stack. It also takes count of the number of counters (units) in the defending hex and evaluates them for various conditions like armor assaulting into an urban or open hex, fortifications, modifying terrain, etc. For our new processing I also had the software sum up the different morale values of the different units and derive an average based on the number of units in the defending stack. If any units in the stack are disrupted, their morale level is counted at a -3 of what is shown in the unit information box. This has the adverse effect of lowering the average morale of the stack and presents a realistic problem for the defender.

When the assault is executed, the software goes to the combat routines and conducts casualty assessment based largely on the same principles that govern shooting combat. Except in this case its defense and offense values are independent of armor facing.

When the casualty assessment is finished, the software conducts a die roll and compares it to an odds based combat results table that I developed. If the attacker wins the die roll an automatic -5 is applied to the defender's morale, simulating the fact that the attacker won and its effect on the defending unit’s morale. If the defender wins, his morale is increased by 3, again simulating an increase due to victory over the attacker. The game then does a morale check based on the defender's modified average morale. If the defender fails his morale check and there are undisrupted units in the attacking force, then the assault is successful and the defender is subject to the software's retreat processing. Otherwise, the defender wins and remains in his hex.

It should be noted at this point that I did not modify the retreat processing at all and that it is now and always has been identical to what the original designers put into the game. That being the case, it is still possible to surround and destroy units. As I said before, it has always been possible to do so, even in 1.03. Except now it is harder to do. The previous system had relied heavily on there being a 99% chance of defeating disrupted units. That is no longer the case. Disrupted units now have a fair chance of defending themselves and although it is still relatively easy to defeat them, the chance of doing so has slipped to between 60% and 70% of the time.

The odds based combat results table is the real gem in all of this for while it still makes it harder for assaults conducted at below 1:1 to succeed, it also allows the worst case attack a 15 percent chance of victory over the defender. This is also reflected at the top of the scale where the defender still has at least a 10% chance of defeating the attacker. And then no matter what happens, it is always possible that the defender might either fail or pass his morale check and completely negate the odds based die roll.

So what does this all mean to the guy playing the game? Simply this, nothing is as predictable as it was before. A player can plan his odds of success, and yet, no matter how well he plans, he may still lose. Or else he can try an enormous gamble that might otherwise be doomed to failure, and see it succeed.

Basically, an attacker has his best chances of success if he can find ways to reduce the defender's morale. This can be done either by firing at them and reducing their strength (often accompanied by a morale loss), disrupting them, or both. So just as in real life, it is always wise to soften up a target before you hit it.

Assaults can result in high casualties for either side. A number of successful tank attacks ultimately bogged down and halted during the secondary assaults after the attacking units were disrupted or damaged during the initial assaults. On the other hand, an attack can defeat a stack of units causing them casualties and reducing their morale. Further attacks can continue the attrition process and the defending stack can find itself sent back multiple times in a cascading series of defeats that continually erodes its strength and morale. Or they can beat the crap out of the attacker in the secondary assault and stop him dead.

Armor alone inside cities versus infantry is at a severe disadvantage. But if they are heavier units like Panthers, Tigers, and Bears, they may at least survive any onslaughts from attacking infantry. However, infantry can now defeat armor inside urban hexes, even in the attack

As Hawk points out, assaulting tanks without infantry in close support on built up hexes is good fun (depending of course on which side you are looking at it). I've had a chance to try it a couple of times and it surely beats trying to shoot them instead!

EDIT: On a final note, I played out turn #23 of Arracourt one more time, this time with the purpose of trying to disrupt each of the defending platoons. I actually managed to do that, and again had my assault being a success. So it is fair to conclude the last stand of the 4th AD would fall regardless of EA settings... :soap:

[Jim von Krieg]

Guys,

An excellent discussion... I understand EA a little bit better... and the last post with the rules portion really put it into perspective to me... Pound the hex to attrit the baddies... then assault... is my style... and it looks like that is what is recommended...

Very interesting that you no longer require total disruption of units in the hex... though I suspect I'll be more successful when I disrupt the hex, then assault... old habits die hard...

Now, I just need to work on my Centurion status... quite a ways to go, but I hope to be there within the next year... I'm in awe of folks that can have so many games going at one time... Maybe when I retire...

thanks..

Jim

[Jason Petho]

You still owe me a turn, Jim!

Jason Petho

[Schwerpunkt75]

ALCON,

I have a very ambivalent opinion on EA.

I agree with those who say that it is likely more accurate and realistic, and I am all for making the game more realistic.

However, I also concur with the poster who said that he got frustrated watching assaults fail that he felt should have succeeded. That sums up my experience, too.

The final point that has convinced me to shy away from playing with EA is that most scenarios' victory conditions were not designed with EA in mind. Scenarios that were balanced or favored the attacker under the old system will play differently, and not necessarily better.

I believe EA plays well in scenarios designed specifically for it, or in very large scenarios such as Von Earlmann's Kursk scenarios, where the attacker has large amounts of firepower at his disposal.

Overall, I like that EA is available to those who want to play with it, I just won't be one of those, for the most part.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

ALCON,

I have a very ambivalent opinion on EA.

I agree with those who say that it is likely more accurate and realistic, and I am all for making the game more realistic.

However, I also concur with the poster who said that he got frustrated watching assaults fail that he felt should have succeeded. That sums up my experience, too.

The final point that has convinced me to shy away from playing with EA is that most scenarios' victory conditions were not designed with EA in mind. Scenarios that were balanced or favored the attacker under the old system will play differently, and not necessarily better.

I believe EA plays well in scenarios designed specifically for it, or in very large scenarios such as Von Earlmann's Kursk scenarios, where the attacker has large amounts of firepower at his disposal.

Overall, I like that EA is available to those who want to play with it, I just won't be one of those, for the most part.

Excellent post Schwerpunkt75! :thumbs_up:
I could not have said it better myself. :smoke:



HSL