Night Distribution Percentage

[76mm]

Though I can see why night assaults are disruptive for large masses of men in WWI, night turns cover 4-6 hours instead of 2 for daylight turns, so progress is already very limited compared to day turns. As any rule is an abstraction that covers a lot of possible situations, it covers situations where a night attack would be very difficult (a densely forested area with significant elevation differences) or not that complicated (a carefully prepared artificially illuminated attack on fox holes in the open in front of your line). If an assault lasts 1-2 hours per normal rules, abstracted by movement points required, there's still 2 hours for units to figure out where everybody is before the start of the next turn. Or for a careful 4 hour night attack.

ComradeP, I understand you to say that you think that night assaults would be more disruptive in WWI than WWII?  What's the reasoning for that, I'm not sure that I agree...

While I agree that the night assault rules will necessarily be an abstraction perhaps not suitable for all situations, in my view the number of situations where a night assault would be very disruptive would vastly outnumber those where it would not be.  

I agree with you that the current rules seem too forgiving for high-quality units and too onerous for lower-quality units.

[76mm]

It´s never ´free´as pointed out - higher Fatigue for actions at night. 
Night assault were happening throughout the war everywhere on all fronts, when the assault was successfull, that unit probably was preparing for a morning counterattack by the enemy...now automatic disruption probably does not give a chance to take the hex at all if I´m right.

I don't really agree that extra fatigue is an adequate penalty for attacking at night, because as it is, a unit that moves into a new hex (without assaulting) might become disrupted in the process, while one that enters a hex via assault will not become disrupted.  Especially for higher quality units, extra fatigue takes a long time to accumulate before it becomes relevant at all.

On your point about counter-attacks:  in my view it is self-evident that a unit which enters a hex and occupies defensive positions without fighting should be better positioned to defend a against a counter-attack than one that had to assault the hex before occupying the same positions:  the one that did it without fighting would have more time and would be less disorganized.  But now it is the opposite.

[ComradeP]

ComradeP, I understand you to say that you think that night assaults would be more disruptive in WWI than WWII?  What's the reasoning for that, I'm not sure that I agree...

While I agree that the night assault rules will necessarily be an abstraction perhaps not suitable for all situations, in my view the number of situations where a night assault would be very disruptive would vastly outnumber those where it would not be.  

I agree with you that the current rules seem too forgiving for high-quality units and too onerous for lower-quality units.

In early-mid WWI, units were trained to attack as large groups in loose formation, which made attempting to maintain any kind of control over the formation as a whole difficult. Infiltration tactics were still being developed. Individual platoons have no support weapons and rely on higher level formations for fire support.

In WWII, the emphasis was placed on smaller units and managing those, at least in the more "modern" forces. Greater availability of flares and star shells would make navigation at night easier.

Depending on the conditions, night assaults would still be chaotic, but a WWII platoon/company commander would have an easier job of managing it than a WWI battalion commander whose tactical options are limited to sending his men from point A to point B. I expect identifying the enemy at night would also be more difficult in early WWI, due to the large number of men running around and the similar uniforms and weaponry.

What situations where night assault rules are a problem do you run into where the problem comes from mechanics related to nighttime warfare and are not caused primarily by, say, a difference in quality?

[76mm]

In WWII, the emphasis was placed on smaller units and managing those, at least in the more "modern" forces. Greater availability of flares and star shells would make navigation at night easier.

Depending on the conditions, night assaults would still be chaotic, but a WWII platoon/company commander would have an easier job of managing it than a WWI battalion commander whose tactical options are limited to sending his men from point A to point B. I expect identifying the enemy at night would also be more difficult in early WWI, due to the large number of men running around and the similar uniforms and weaponry.

Interesting, but I consider these same factors the reason why WWII would not be any easier than WWI: both your own units and the enemy are more dispersed, making it more difficult to command your own units and find those of the enemy. Simply moving from Point A to Point B at night is hard enough, anything more ambitious invites chaos. See my point below...

What situations where night assault rules are a problem do you run into where the problem comes from mechanics related to nighttime warfare and are not caused primarily by, say, a difference in quality?

I just think that the difficulty of conducting night attacks is grossly underestimated (actually I should say night operations rather than attacks, but the night movement disruption rules adequately address non-combat stuff). The loss of situational awareness at night--even for highly-trained units--is very severe. Except in unusual circumstances (full moon, open terrain), it is much harder to tell where you are, or where the enemy is...while you *usually* can see the squadmate in front of and/or behind you, forget about seeing the next squad, much less platoon. And I would think that illumination aids such as starshells, etc., would generally be of more use to the defender, because for the attacker to use them when they were most needed--during the approach--would be to lose the advantage of surprise.

Generally IMHO I think it is natural that night assaults would be much more disruptive than night moves, and so it doesn't make much sense to me that night moves are penalized but not night assaults.

Finally, all I can say is that I was in an M1 tank platoon back in the day, with thermal sights, etc--and even then night operations were not exactly easy, although we did (usually!) succeed in avoiding total chaos. That said, even then our night operations were generally in areas that we knew relatively well, and doing the same in an unfamiliar area would presumably have been even more challenging.

[76mm]

I just recalled some other specific issues from my days in a tank that have evidently scarred me for life regarding night operations: during Desert Storm my tank company was, of course out in the middle of the desert. At that time, I was tank company XO and so one of my duties was to make the rounds of all the tanks at stand-to (on foot), to ensure that they were up and about in accordance with standing orders.

I forget the exact time at this point, but stand-to was generally an hour or so before sunrise, ie just before it started getting light. And I have to tell you that on many of those mornings--again, in the middle of the open desert while looking for friendly tanks in a relatively tight perimeter--I could see so little that I literally had to walk around with my hands in front of my face to avoid walking into a tank before seeing it. And, although I'm admittedly kind of a klutz, several times I fell flat on my face when I stumbled on a little divot or a deep track print.

[Dog Soldier]

I would assume that was a night without much moonlight illumination. A full moon would make night navigation very different than your experience.
The game treats all nights the same.

FWIW, I think there should be a little more sophistication for night movement and assault. Moonlight, if known from sources would make a difference. Being in the open desert near Tobruk or on the steppe at Kursk would be different than Normandy. I do not think visibility would be longer from an operational standpoint, just easier on a full moon to navigate behind the lines.
Many times units which had fought were relieved by units in phases during the night. These type of operations appear from what I have read over the years to go smoothly.

Then there should be a case where a firefight leads to a night assault only because daylight ends. These were rare, I suppose and nightfall was usually a time to disengage with the enemy and regroup for the next day. Should there be disruption to pull back on the first night turn?

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

The only time I used military-grade thermals was some 15 years ago. I was surprised at the time that though shapes became clear, it was very difficult to distinguish details. I thought the "blur" you see in movies was just a gimmick, but it was very real.

I was never in the armed forces, only spent a few days with the Dutch Air Mobile Brigade to see if the army was for me as a teenager. Due to hearing deficiencies, I never signed up.

I felt more comfortable with a flashlight or truck headlight as illumination. The goggles were rather disorienting.

That time, it was bright enough at night to see the sergeant and the rest of the guys, but if we had not been walking through a sandy heath with plenty of contrast, it would've been quite difficult to distinguish obstacles (branches and the like). As a small unit we could still move around. The driver of the transport didn't see us until we were next to his window, though. The usual problem of looking into a dark area from a point that's somewhat illuminated.

In game terms, assaults and disruption mechanics are already heavily abstracted, which might be why night assaults bother me less. In the greater scheme of things, I don't think they're more problematic than, say, 1 Man/D results.

[76mm]

I would assume that was a night without much moonlight illumination.  A full moon would make night navigation very different than your experience.

Many times units which had fought were relieved by units in phases during the night.  These type of operations appear from what I have read over the years to go smoothly.

On your first point, yes, of course a full moon can be a very different situation, BUT it is only really helpful to the extent that there is no cloud cover, which in many parts of the world cannot be assumed, especially during certain seasons.  So full moon conditions, or anything like them, could only be expected to prevail a rather small percentage of the time.

On your second point, yes, you are correct, but AFAIK both from my reading and personal experience, those types of operations were very carefully "stage managed"--multiple representatives from the unit being relieved would be stationed at various points along the way to guide the new unit into position, and to the extent possible guides from the new unit would coordinate with the unit being relieved on the ground before nightfall, return to their units, and help guide them into the new positions.  This is a very different situation from someone blundering around in the dark trying to launch an attack.