Assault not ratio based?

[fishboy73]

This is not a criticism of the system just an observation. I am curious what other people think. Assault is based on firepower and not firepower ratios like you might see in other systems. Sure there are modifiers for morale and leadership and so on. But fp is the main factor. Thus it would appear that a company on company assault might be resolved quicker than a platoon on platoon assault. A company is three platoons and has 3 x the firepower. More likely to get an x result. A platoon on platoon assault might take a long time to resolve due to the low firepower. Is that historically accurate? Idk? Whereas if both were resolved using ratios the time frame to resolution would probably be about the same. Furthermore if you use units with low firepower (conquest of Ethiopia) a platoon on platoon assault might take a long time to resolve. Just curious if designer has ever addressed reasoning for this approach or if other players have some thought or insight? Thanks.

[Greyfox]

This is not a criticism of the system just an observation. I am curious what other people think. Assault is based on firepower and not firepower ratios like you might see in other systems. Sure there are modifiers for morale and leadership and so on. But fp is the main factor. Thus it would appear that a company on company assault might be resolved quicker than a platoon on platoon assault. A company is three platoons and has 3 x the firepower. More likely to get an x result. A platoon on platoon assault might take a long time to resolve due to the low firepower. Is that historically accurate? Idk? Whereas if both were resolved using ratios the time frame to resolution would probably be about the same. Furthermore if you use units with low firepower (conquest of Ethiopia) a platoon on platoon assault might take a long time to resolve. Just curious if designer has ever addressed reasoning for this approach or if other players have some thought or insight? Thanks.

         First, please don't read into my remarks as rude or flippant.  I am trying to write this in a concise manner, and that sometimes comes off as rude.  That said, have you many books on WW II battles?  I think that the more you read about some of these battles, the more you will find that this system actually replicates the action pretty well, when many other systems fail. For this discussion, I will only talk write about a few factors - Time, Area (space), and Force Ratios.
         Let's talk about time factors first.   Most battles aren't rapid encounters (even in modern times).  Part of that is based on the fact that the majority of combat formations are infantry, and most of those are not mechanized or motorized.  We are talking about movement a walking pace, and that is before contact.  As you get closer to anticipated or know enemy locations everything slows down and becomes more deliberate.  You start seeking those things that prove you a cover (can't be penetrated by small arms fire) and concealment (obscures the target but does not protect against small arms) that improves survivability as you approach enemy positions.  Additionally, as a commander/leader you are maneuvering your units to ensure that some are suppressing the enemy with fire, while other units move closer to the enemy, establishing a new firing line to provide suppressive fire for other units to then bound forward.  In modern times a planning factor is an advance of 1 kilometer (5 hexes) per hour during perfect conditions - daylight, dry ground, and flat to rolling terrain.  At night, limited visibility, or rough terrain that planning factor is reduced to .4 kms (2 hexes) per hour.  So as rapid as we try to conduct assaults, they tend to take time.  However, numbers are not always the answer to speed the momentum of the attack.
         The minimum ratio deemed necessary for successful attack is 3:1 ratio (3 attackers to 1 defender), and 5:1 ratio is deemed necessary to guarantee success. Oddly enough, the larger the formations facing each other, especially if they are below the magic 3:1 ratio take even longer and tend to be more uncertain.  Even as a military professional, many of assaults I make in PG are less than the ideal 3:1 deemed minimum for success.  Sometimes that leads to feeding more units into the assault over a longer period of time.  he larger the units facing each other, especially if they are relatively closely matched) the longer the attack takes.  These doesn't address the issue of tactics (the art of arranging and maneuvering units on the ground).
          If you look at the actual scale of the terrain (200 meters per hex), you have to understand the an entire Platoon could stretch in a linear formation (rifles pointed at the enemy) across 200 meters.  That allows for a dispersion. of about 5 meters between soldiers.  Five meters should be considered the minimum, and not ideal, dispersion between soldiers in open terrain.  If you don't get the proper dispersion laterally, then you employ some depth in your formations.  in the almost 104,000 square meters in each hex, there is some room, but it is limited, especially if two or more platoons of enemy units are also in the same hex.  So even if you get three platoons in the fight there is really a limited number of rifles that can actually point at an enemy, or the dispersion is so limited that the lethality would be through the roof.  Most soldiers, especially more veteran ones, rely on dispersion to reduce casualties.
         So simple calculations of the lethality of units doesn't necessarily, nor should it, dictate casualties.  Nor does it guarantee a rapid assault.  There are too many other factors most of which I haven't addressed here, including: leadership and training (captured in some respects by morale going into the fight), terrain, weather, etc.).  
         Hope this helps.

Mike

[fishboy73]

No rudeness felt! I asked for commentary. I’ve read some military books. I had forgotten about the 3:1 recommendation ratio for success in assault. Since the basic unit in pg is a platoon I suppose this works and one shouldn’t expect much success in a platoon on platoon assault.

[plloyd1010]

Daniel, I suspect you are thinking of Assault Combat as a mêlée. I find it more practical to think of it as mini SL/ASL fight, on a map 5-6 hexes across. Not so much bayonets and hand-to-hand, though that could happen, but mostly intense close-range shooting, small group infiltrations, and personal leadership.

[fishboy73]

Yes I’m comparing to asl (and others -panzer, ats, lock n load). Your analogy makes sense. Assault in pg is more than just close combat. The infiltration, supporting fire, skulking (asl term), defensive fire. One turn in pg 1s 15m. one turn asl 2 min. So roughly 1 turn pg is 8 turns asl. So I suppose it works. It would be hard in asl if you started out at some distance in a 1 on 1 engagement to get a decisive result in that time frame. And in my asl experience, close combat is not that common (it does happen) at least in European scenarios especially in rural areas.

[pixelgeek]

Daniel, I suspect you are thinking of Assault Combat as a mêlée. I find it more practical to think of it as mini SL/ASL fight, on a map 5-6 hexes across.

This is the perfect way to view it.

Also don't forget that the assaulted hex has been softened up in PG for several turns. 

PG also plays at a larger scale so the more granular effects that you see in ASL aren't modelled.

[Greyfox]

Daniel, I suspect you are thinking of Assault Combat as a mêlée. I find it more practical to think of it as mini SL/ASL fight, on a map 5-6 hexes across. Not so much bayonets and hand-to-hand, though that could happen, but mostly intense close-range shooting, small group infiltrations, and personal leadership.

Once again Peter, you are able to relay what I tried to lay out in several paragraphs in just a few lines. I will try to remember this analogy in the future.

Mike

[plloyd1010]

Thank you Mike.

I'm honored.