[Rules] Multiple Assaults in one hex

[saracv3]

Interesting topic and premise, would think that the probability of gaining a positive result on the Assault Table would be increased with one combined assault than with 3 smaller assaults, would depend on the tactical situation and column shifts.
 
In the example you have 3 Japanese Infantry platoons, 4-3, and you attack on the assault table one at a time, 4 combat strength would be a 3 on the table, -1 say for terrain (jungle), +3 for higher morale, leader (no combat modifier) and being Japanese Infantry puts you on the 9 column, you have a higher probability of having a No Effect dice result for each assault (roll of 7 or 8).
 
But if you combined into one large assault, you would be on the 18 column (assume the same criteria as above) you would be guaranteed a result even if it is a M result and have a higher probability of rolling a step loss (dice roll of 2-3-4-10-11-12 opposed to 2-3-12).
 
Depends on if you want to roll three times, hoping to get one or more good dice rolls or play it safe with one roll.  Could see in certain circumstances where this tactic could be beneficial to the attacker.

Yes , M was the pathetic result on the 18 column. Due to a +2 morale mod. for the Australian leader. No effect for the entire group. I couldn’t get higher tthan 18 because of rocky terrain. This was an 13 turn battle for the 3 80m hexes of Hill A, PoCr #34. Now I’m playing PoCr #5, A Hostile Reception, which pits Crete villagers against German 8/8 paratroopers. The Cretans, (3 -1 rated units, 7/5 morale, but +1 assault for ferociousness) simply must defend an olive grove hex for 15 turns. There are 6 Cretan units and 3 German paratroopers with an HMG. Predicting a German cakewalk, which means the Cretans will probably win.

It would make for a good test scenario for the Cube Assault Theorem. All attacks would be rated 3 with leader (if played to plan), or all three together could get on the 9 column. All will try to be dug-in in light woods. Are light woods (olive orchards) defined ass woods. The Assault Chart does not list light woods.

[triangular_cube]

Interesting topic and premise, would think that the probability of gaining a positive result on the Assault Table would be increased with one combined assault than with 3 smaller assaults, would depend on the tactical situation and column shifts.
 
In the example you have 3 Japanese Infantry platoons, 4-3, and you attack on the assault table one at a time, 4 combat strength would be a 3 on the table, -1 say for terrain (jungle), +3 for higher morale, leader (no combat modifier) and being Japanese Infantry puts you on the 9 column, you have a higher probability of having a No Effect dice result for each assault (roll of 7 or 8).
 
But if you combined into one large assault, you would be on the 18 column (assume the same criteria as above) you would be guaranteed a result even if it is a M result and have a higher probability of rolling a step loss (dice roll of 2-3-4-10-11-12 opposed to 2-3-12).
 
Depends on if you want to roll three times, hoping to get one or more good dice rolls or play it safe with one roll.  Could see in certain circumstances where this tactic could be beneficial to the attacker.

Yes , M was the pathetic result on the 18 column. Due to a +2 morale mod. for the Australian leader. No effect for the entire group. I couldn’t get higher tthan 18 because of rocky terrain. This was an 13 turn battle for the 3 80m hexes of Hill A, PoCr #34. Now I’m playing PoCr #5, A Hostile Reception, which pits Crete villagers against German 8/8 paratroopers. The Cretans, (3 -1 rated units, 7/5 morale, but +1 assault for ferociousness) simply must defend an olive grove hex for 15 turns. There are 6 Cretan units and 3 German paratroopers with an HMG. Predicting a German cakewalk, which means the Cretans will probably win.

It would make for a good test scenario for the Cube Assault Theorem. All attacks would be rated 3 with leader (if played to plan), or all three together could get on the 9 column. All will try to be dug-in in light woods. Are light woods (olive orchards) defined ass woods. The Assault Chart does not list light woods.

I suspect you wont see distortion to the same level without base morale of 9 in play. I'm interested in hearing how it works out though if you do try it. 

Obviously there are times when it is better to split fire with other combat types depending on modifiers and target morale. I didn't intend for this thread to evolve into that discussion. I just hadn't realized you could with assault like you can with the other fire types due to the text wording in the rules. 

I think overall the "broken" aspect is morale 9, which isnt necessarily a ground breaking theory. It just is really amplified in the scenarios i have been playing recently due to the large Japanese/Finn assault modifiers and generally poor VCs in early PG scenarios. 

Maybe the 4th edition assault revamp fixed it too. I wont be hitting 4th edition games for years but I look forward to finding out. 

[triangular_cube]

Since considering this, I have completed two JF scenarios to try this out further. These weren't scenarios that were well tuned for this to work, as troop density was such that each hex in the perimeter could be stuffed 3 deep. I felt like when opponents were 2 or less deep, it was almost always to the Japanese benefit to multi assault. It was kind of hit or miss at 3. If the Americans had a triple machine gun stack with first fire though, you were likely dead either way. 

(As an interesting aside for those who haven't read or played the original jungle rules in a long while, you used to not be able to examine opposing stacks in the Jungle unless you could spot them. Because it was not uncommon in the Guadalcanal/Jungle Fighting scenarios to have a dozen LTs on your OOB, the game included a meta element where the Japanese had to feel out the American lines to find and avoid the HMGs. That huge stack could be 3x HMG or just 1x MAR and 4x leaders. You didnt know until you poked them.I quite liked the effect, although its hard to simulate solo).

After reflecting on the results of these scenarios, I still think these are legal via gaming the optional combat rules, but not really the intent of the game design. Why do I feel that away about the intent of the design?

The top level summary of Assault from the beginning of the rule book states:

"Assault: Units starting their activation adjacent to enemy units can move into the enemy units' hex if activated by a leader. This initiates an assault, in which both sides fire with all their units in the hex. Each player adds up the direct fire strengths of his units in the hex, finds the correct column, adds any column modifiers and rolls one die for the results. Results affect all enemy units in the hex."

Obviously this does not talk about optional combat at all, or an existing assault, but as a top level statement it paints the all or nothing picture of assault. 

Bearing that in mind, I'm going to house rule against multi assaults via intent in my solo games. If I intend to assault with a unit in a given turn, I will do so together.

On occasion, multi assaults may occur when the original assault has already fired and new entrants trigger optional combat, or if the original assault so badly mauls the defenders that an unused unit that I had not not intended on using in assault suddenly looks like a promising option. 

But no more purposely splitting up my 3x Japanese INF already in the stack into 3 assaults because the rules dont say I cant. 

Horribly murky and unenforceable in a shared game of course. But I can police intent just fine in a solitaire game and am at peace with my own ruling on it.

[Blackcloud6]

I think that breaking up your units in an assault hex into separate assaults would be illegal because of how 12.4 is written:

12.4 Procedure"Each player totals the Direct Fire values of all his units in the hex..."

[triangular_cube]

I think that breaking up your units in an assault hex into separate assaults would be illegal because of how 12.4 is written:

12.4 Procedure"Each player totals the Direct Fire values of all his units in the hex..."

12.3 indicates " If he attacks, any units that moved into the hex this turn, plus any undemoralized friendly units and leaders that began the turn in the assault hex and have not activated this turn, may attack if desired. Not all units must attack."

Multi assault, in theory, requires the assault or assaults to trigger off of voluntary combat, not the required combat when entering the hex.

Unless the first unit enters, triggers required combat, and then other units on a later activation trigger voluntary combat. That could use a multi assault with required combat. 

A strict interpretation of 12.4 would allow individual units in a hex to assault multiple times in one turn. For example hexes A-B-C are all adjacent. A is defended by 2x INF. B and C each have 1x INF, 1 x LT of the opposing side. Activation one INF, LT assault hex A, resolved on the assault table as 2 x INF vs 1 x INF, 1 x LT. In the following activation, hex C assaults hex a, rule 12.4 would tell us that the second assault would be 2 x INF vs 2x INF, 2 x LT. I believe this to be incorrect and the second assault would also be 2x INF vs 1 x INF, 1 x LT.

Even without the multi assault theory (which discussed above I have chosen not to use due to it being seemingly unstoppable in conjunction with morale 9 Japanese or Finns), there are routine situations were 12.4 would appear incorrect. 

I think 12.4 was written in the context of 12.2 which ends  "All units of both sides present in the hex must participate." but 12.3 was added in later? Idk thats how I have always played it.