I view town assaults as a technical phase of the system, a bit like playing a long endgame in chess which requires technical knowledge to hold the result. Just like long endgames are not everyone's cup of tea, neither are town assaults.
David Murray wrote a Daily Content Tactical Assault Advantage in 2013. The idea could be reworked to apply to 4th edition.
From my perspective, assaults play better opposed because you're trying to impose your will on your opponent. I often male different decisions in opposed games than when playing solitaire.
I would not be interested in a Streets of Stalingrad game at the PG level.
Have you played with the Drumfire optional rule? I haven't and I'm thinking of adopting it. Continuing a bombardment over more than 1 turn effectively degrades towns and dug in positions.
More often than not now I attempt to get units demoralized rather than disrupted through DF and bombardment before assaulting. It does take some of the power of 8 morale away, and even if they recover, they are still disrupted for an assault. With 16 turns that's not always possible. I'm currently playing an 18 turn scenario and have to take a bunch of spread out positions in that time. I'm sure some of my assaults will be rushed.
None of that changes PG not being perfect in some assault situations and them being very challenging sometimes, especially in 4e. Your scenario was designed under 3e, and may work better with 3e assault casualty rates.
I thought that the tactical advantage article was interesting and could change the flow of major assaults significantly.
Just playing Kokoda campaign scenario 15, Ioribaiwa 2 which is Assault heavy. All hexes are Jungle and there is a large number of pure infantry units on both sides, i. e Australians and Japanese. As the Japanese, I have to bring most of my troops on the central trail, or on levels 40m and 60m held by the Australians as a frontal transversal line. Not an easy task given the morale 8 & the firepower of the Australians and their first fire advantage in assault in jungle. It is probably as technical as an urban assault across a river. And it is fun ! Difficult, technical but still a lot of fun.
As the attacker, you have to exploit every resource possible, any failure in the defense, any missed occasion by the Australian. In this scenario, no ´prep' fire can be really effective: a maximum of Japs (morale 8) move adjacent to the Aussies, hope for the best (no disrupt, no demoralized, no kill) and enter in assault on next turn but most often with only one unit and a leader. There, it is easier (?) : at least a part of your unit should resist and lock the enemy in the assault. If it works, send one or two inf platoons more into the assault but as simple reinforcements : they won't fight, just joining the remains of the first platoons. In the next turn, evade from the assault hex with one of the good order infantry : you are through the enemy line ! Go on with this tactic as much as possible. Now the defender has to take some risks too.
Every die counts, every move seems critical: I like it a lot !
Have you played with the Drumfire optional rule? I haven't and I'm thinking of adopting it. Continuing a bombardment over more than 1 turn effectively degrades towns and dug in positions.
More often than not now I attempt to get units demoralized rather than disrupted through DF and bombardment before assaulting. It does take some of the power of 8 morale away, and even if they recover, they are still disrupted for an assault. With 16 turns that's not always possible. I'm currently playing an 18 turn scenario and have to take a bunch of spread out positions in that time. I'm sure some of my assaults will be rushed.
None of that changes PG not being perfect in some assault situations and them being very challenging sometimes, especially in 4e. Your scenario was designed under 3e, and may work better with 3e assault casualty rates.
I thought that the tactical advantage article was interesting and could change the flow of major assaults significantly.
I have not tried drumfire. I'll take a look at it.
I have used the Tactical Advantage rules before but i didn't this time. I think I will always do so in the future.
But what I don't like about assaults against towns, entrenched and dug in units is the tediousness of doing the same over and over turn after turn. It just drags the game down in my view. It also seems very luck dependent.
I get what the system is trying to reproduce, the need to suppress and almost break a defender before your assault. But in my view it takes too long and to dicey.
I'm working on a better "suppression" model that may add a touch more realism with not much more work. I'll say more about it when I test it.
(07-27-2017, 11:39 AM)Matt W Wrote: Thanks Fred! I'm looking forward to seeing it.
OK, I started playing Counterattack scenario 28 using my "suppression" concept and tactical Advantage. I got to use both in just one attack on a village (which treats units as "dug in") and I liked the effect so it's worth exploring. As this scenario has entrenchments to be taken, I think I'll see some more use of my concept.
I'd like a few folks to take a look at it in the meantime. If you would like to do so so, respond here and I'll pm the notion to you. you have to agree though, to not reveal it to anyone else or post it anywhere. I want to work it out and then submit it for daily content.
