|
RE: Multiple Assaults in one hex
I tested the multi assaults on a replay of my JF#1 save which had the northern sector of the US perimeter manned by 3 stacks of INF + HMG + leader. Japanese were coming in in three groups of 2x INF + 2 x leader. After initial contact I started firing off each assault with a single Japanese INF + leader.
In each case, the choice is one attack on the 18 column, or 2 cumulative attacks on the 13 column (shifts for leader, higher morale, and japanese intrinsic). This shifts and additional 1 to the right with a leader with a combat bonus (4+1 to the base 5 column, or 4+4+1 to the base 9). The Americans were wiped out to a man after 2 rounds of mutli assault, but stood for 5 with single assault. Sample size of 1 in each case, I know.
Americans had first fire in each assault, being dug in. But base morale 9 really doesnt care.
The caveat of that defensive first fire resulting in a step loss, dropping Japanese lowest morale by 1 didnt come into play, and wouldnt have as the US Army gets a fancy "7" here. Had they been Marines being assaulted (usually 8), defensive first fire with a step loss would drop the group assault to a 13 (same column as the single assault), while rolling a step loss against the individual assaults would only inhibit that one unit.
I have to say, against the squishy army, it was pretty clear that the multiple assaults were obscenely destructive. Will try against Marines when i table scenario 2.
Honestly though, with many of the Guadalcanal (not sure about JF yet) VCs saying things like "Americans lose if they take 2 step losses", playing to the VCs meant the Japanese game was always, "did i close to assault? did i roll a 6? i win". This way basically just doubles the die rolls to get that 6.
For those unaware, I play old modules with the rules as they were at the time it came out, so 3rd edition assault chart instead of 4th in my plays. That might make the difference too as it was 1d6 rather than 2d6.
|
