The Tedium of Assualts

[Blackcloud6]

Yesterday I got the hankering to play a small game of PG and also do a Bulge scenario (since it was snowing outside) so I picked Champs from BotB. It is a German battalion of Grenadiers night assaulting a US Para Company who will get reinforced later. Simple maneuver up and then assault with the dug in paratroopers or those who set up in the town. It ends up being turn after turn of rolling the assaults until finally somebody whittles down and the other side wins.

This to me, is the greatest weakness of this system. many scenarios turn into a die rolling contest of assaults. Tactics cease to be a factor in the game, just a bunch of dice through for the attacks and MCs.

Even the last game I played, in Burning Tigers felt this way. I think this is one reason why I play a PG scenario and rarely follow up with another one right away.

Now I played an assault scenario of ASL on Saturday and it was a blast. Granted the scales are different but that game system keeps the players engaged and the dice rolling is not for the same thing over and over again. ASL has spice; PG is really sort of bland. Why is this?

[campsawyer]

Which assault rules did you play with v3 or v4? With v3 on average about 4-6 turns to clear a hex, v4 many went over 10 turns, few below 4. IMO, v3 can be tedious as you stated, v4 is down right dull.

To answer your question directly, it is in the statistical probability getting enough higher factor units into the hex and then rolling the proper result. Someone better at math can give the details, but I know that it takes a lot to render an entire platoon or company destroyed. It is something that should take some time, but not forever(in game time) to do.

I have never found the right balance and there will always be outliers. Just one past game, a 30+ assault failed to kill the enemy unit and in turn the defenders were able to demoralized the entire stack. Not much you can do as it is statistical probable, but highly unlikely. I chalked it up to the nature of the game.

[plloyd1010]

Fred, my first impression of you problem is that you assaulted too soon. My experience has been that without some advantage or softening up, assaults are problematic and tend to drag on. When it came to ASL, I stopped playing because one had to be too much of a rules lawyer. PG tends to be rather vanilla with units. The 'spice' in PG has much more to do with command structures. Fortunately the system lends itself modification without having to violate the structure.

[Blackcloud6]

> Which assault rules did you play with v3 or v4?

V4, both this game and the last one.

[Matt W]

I second the idea that a hex must be softened up prior to assault, especially in v. 4. In v. 3 I often would rush a hex that was in good order to throw someone back and take a hex. The defense has been greatly aided in v. 4 so firepower has to take effect prior to assault.

[Blackcloud6]

Fred, my first impression of you problem is that you assaulted too soon. My experience has been that without some advantage or softening up, assaults are problematic and tend to drag on. When it came to ASL, I stopped playing because one had to be too much of a rules lawyer. PG tends to be rather vanilla with units. The 'spice' in PG has much more to do with command structures. Fortunately the system lends itself modification without having to violate the structure.

It is a night scenario with one hex range. The Germans have to close because if they wait until day light the American reinforcements will come and make the job 2x as difficult. They could have sat back a few hexes put up a Starshell and pound the Americans a few turns. But what I find out in these kinds of situations, the attacker gets just as "softened up" by the defender's artillery and return fire then does not have enough to carry the fight forward into the assault.

I'm not saying the assaults are not working, they are just tedious to work through turn after turn.

As to ASL, yes, it is a rules lawyer's dream. But after you have played for awhile that tends to go away. Also, I've found that if you play faster than you want to and only spend a few moments on rules, the game plays much better. I tend to choose opponents that play that way. I've also instituted a "lost golf ball rule" when resolving rules disputes. two minutes to find it and agree or you roll a die like the rules say and move on. Jot down the rule and look it up after the game and figure it out. One also has to get out of the "I gotta win" mindset to fully enjoy ASL (IMHO). That is why I stopped playing in tournaments.

I played one of the most exciting ASL scenarios ever this past Saturday. it went down tot he wire, back and forth and squeaked a victory by a point. Exciting the whole game. No other system consistently does that like ASL.

PG actually is a lot of fun with games with maneuver in them, but these assault only scenarios can tend to blur together.

[Blackcloud6]

I second the idea that a hex must be softened up prior to assault, especially in v. 4. In v. 3 I often would rush a hex that was in good order to throw someone back and take a hex. The defense has been greatly aided in v. 4 so firepower has to take effect prior to assault.

I rarely see the "softening up" working. The attackers usually get just as hammered while sitting in position firing on the defenders.

The assaults that usually work for the quickest me are the ones with combined arms and engineers. You roll up, fire a turn or two with the firepower the armor brings and then assault in. If you sit there waiting to disrupt and demoralize everyone the attacking infantry ends up getting demoralized and you have no one to fight with in the town.

What would be nice to see is some turn by turn replays.

[Shad]

I can recall seeing a variant long ago that imposed a morale penalty of -1 on units that were surrounded. It was meant to reward flanking and make these sorts of endless assaults less common. You might try it.

[Blackcloud6]

I can recall seeing a variant long ago that imposed a morale penalty of -1 on units that were surrounded. It was meant to reward flanking and make these sorts of endless assaults less common. You might try it.

That is a very interesting concept. ASL has a similar rule called encirclement, a unit suffers a -1 to morale if shot on from opposite or three non adjacent hexsides.

A rule like this might make one deploy his defense a bit more spread out, PG seems to promote condensing troops too closely.

[campsawyer]

I second the idea that a hex must be softened up prior to assault, especially in v. 4. In v. 3 I often would rush a hex that was in good order to throw someone back and take a hex. The defense has been greatly aided in v. 4 so firepower has to take effect prior to assault.

I rarely see the "softening up" working. The attackers usually get just as hammered while sitting in position firing on the defenders.

The assaults that usually work for the quickest me are the ones with combined arms and engineers. You roll up, fire a turn or two with the firepower the armor brings and then assault in. If you sit there waiting to disrupt and demoralize everyone the attacking infantry ends up getting demoralized and you have no one to fight with in the town.

What would be nice to see is some turn by turn replays.

You are right on with trying to "soften up" the defenders. Unless you are dealing with low morale defenders softening up works about 50% of the time. With morale recovery units get back to "fighting fitness" easily if they are 8+ morale, add a +1 leader and even 7+ can get back too. Even though I like the damage in PG it has flaws, namely how units can recover to a full fighting state even with prolonged attack against them. There isn't a reducing effect with the game that is permanent for the scenario. IMO this contributes to prolonging the assaults.