Close Assaults
 

Remember in the old days when you could load infantry into a truck in an adjacent hex? Then it was sensibly changed to the same hex.

I wonder if the same thing should be done with 'close assaults'?

A player on another forum was concerned that infantry, with only a handgrenade, could KO or disable tanks.

I did point out the vulnerability of AFVs to close-up infantry, and how infantry are trained to exploit weak points like the engine cover, view ports, and check for unlocked hatches etc. But this usually required infantry to get very close to the AFV, and sometimes even climb aboard the thing.

During the discussion it occurred to me that it may be more realistic to only allow ‘close assaults’ when infantry are in the same hex as the enemy AFV, instead of the current adjacent (1 hex) range.

This would mean that infantry waiting in ambush in a woods hex next to a road could still ambush vehicles moving along the road. You would still be able to throw grenades/AT-grenades or attack AFVs 1 hex away with mines and satchel charges, but you'd only get the 'close assault' bonus when in the same hex.

So attacking infantry would have to leave the cover of the woods and move onto the road to ‘close assault’ the AFV, presumably after the AFV is well buttoned up.

This would also make short range infantry ATk weapons – like the Panzerfaust and PIAT – a little more realistic. Because currently there’s not much difference between a 100m range Panzerfaust and a ‘close assault’; but if ‘close assaults’ are ‘same hex only’ then short range ATk weapons become a little more valuable.

In my ambush in the woods, if I have a Panzerfaust I can sit tight in cover and fire away, but if I only have grenades, although I can attack the AFVs, I will probably have to leave cover to get the ‘close assault’ bonus and a much better chance of damaging or destroying a AFV.

Any thoughts?


Cross

Re: Close Assaults
 

I like the idea! The only thing I can think of that might be tricky is a situation where for instance you have a russian squad in cover and a buttoned PzIV pulls up next to you...you decide to close assault it in the same hex, does the moderately suppressed PzIV get op-fire on you as I imagine you will be come visible to him soon as you enter his hex? I would think it would be more realistic for the squad to be able to move into the same hex and get a very high probability of remaining unseen till the first shot or at least getting the first shot on a buttoned up tank. I do not have a lot of WinSPWW2 under my belt yet, but in my experience entering the same hex as an enemy unit always makes you visible and usually ends in you getting op-fired at. I could be very wrong...its just been my limited experience.

Re: Close Assaults
 

I'm not suggesting any changes to the visibility/movement/op-fire routine, only the range of a 'close assault' from 1 to 0.

But to try to answer your question: I believe a moderately suppressed panzer has to pass some sort of experience check for it to be able to spot and op-fire at infantry that are moving into its hex or an adjacent hex.

The more suppressed the panzer, the less chance it will spot or op-fire. Which is why it's not a good idea for infantry to approach a tank unless it's reasonably buttoned up.

I think that's two seperate checks. So if your infantry are un-spotted, the panzer (and any other enemy units in LoS) will first have to pass an experience check to spot the infantry moving, but even if your infantry are spotted, the panzer wouldn't fire unless it passes the op-fire check. I think that's right, hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong. :)


Cross

Re: Close Assaults
 

It might be interesting to be considered for the next patch. Already announced to be released this month. To spmbt and ww2.

Re: Close Assaults
 

This is realistic, i love it. I wonder how "difficult" this thing is to implement. Unless of course we have a general consensus that close assault means a "basketball feat" of throwing 3" grenades 50 meters aways into a tiny hole of some rapidly moving tanks amidst the heat of battle...

Re: Close Assaults
 

What i've found out by trail and error.
Is any AFV and NOT supported by infrantry entering a hex within 50m of any undetected infrantry expecaily in forest rough,ect. most likey pays dearly for it.
On the other hand close assaulting infrantry do take a penalty when moving, thereforefore don't always succeed,so why give them an extra move cost penalty to be in the same hex when the vehicle was so exposed to attack, the penalty should be not be on infranty rather the unsupported armour that can't see all around even when unbuttoned.

Re: Close Assaults
 

Quite so.

The game cannot handle the concept of a weapon with range zero. Nor can the AI (The original game code way back in 95 or so did not even let you enter the same hex as a spotted enemy unit that was still active). Any time the AI enters the same hex as a player unit is simply because of path-finding - if it decides to fire, it will blaze away at 1 hex 99% of the time.

The infantry units are best thought of as place-holders for the section location - the individual men can be at the hex edge, or even assumed to spread into the next hex. Such micro management is not part of the game (it would be, if it were a platoon/section level game with individual men tracked, e.g. like the various "squad level" first-person shooter games). So the location is the centroid of a "cloud" of men.

Overt the original SP code, where crews and snipers actually were rather potent tank executioners:

We have already added code for tank panic, which affects low skilled or morale infantry, and those with no A/T weaponry. Tank assault needs high experience, and decent morale (there is a morale check, which if failed means you fire at the tank instead of assaulting it - or panic and run away).

We have added code that made close assaults more difficult, per hex the infantry travels to the tank before the assault. Don't try to run a section 5 hexes down a road and then attack a Tiger - it will probably end in tears.

The number of men in the assault section, if it is not a specialist inf-AT unit class, affects assault chance. One man is not very good.

The crew unit class is now considered untrained in assaults, so is more likely to be subject to tank panic.

If the assault element is depleted (half the hit points or more gone) - it is not too happy trying an assault.

If the assault unit is already spotted by the enemy, the chance is reduced.

Suppression of the assault element affects assault chance - and they cannot do so if pinned in any case.

As to the target:
If the tank has zero top armour, it is a "grenade bucket". Open topped AFV do not fare at all well in close assaults. same goes for AFV which have no armour on any other aspect (no rear turret say).

If the target is suppressed, it becomes much more vulnerable to assault.

If the target is in retreat or rout, or is immobilised, the chance goes up.

If the infantry A/T weaponry has no overmatch against any aspect (top is included - they are swarming over it) then the infantry chance is much reduced. (The HEAT value is the primary reference here, even if no HEAT ammo is carried - ATR have a HEAT value for assaults but no HEAT ammo. HE AP value is also considered (for grenades and satchels). AP is not, as far as I can see)

If the vehicle is travelling fast, it is considered less able to avoid the assault, or react to it. Speeding into an ambush is not good tactics. Also, if the vehicle triggers an attack from an unspotted assaulter in its own phase - the assaulter gets a bonus for blundering into ambush.

The sniper as an anti-tank asset?.
- single man so chances less good
- may have grenades, but only useful vs tin cans with some aspect of class 1 armour, or open topped grenade buckets
- Usually rather expensive elements!
- If assault fails, is probably going to be blasted at 1 hex range by an angry AFV. Snipers get no special bonuses at 1 hex or less, and hence are easy meat.
- In a LC core, may have really good experience which helps the assault chance no end. But then it is an even more expensive very vulnerable asset.

I would be entirely happy if a PBEM opponent tried to use his snipers as anti-tank assets - especially veteran core troops :)!

However most folk who wail about being assaulted by infantry are those who do not use proper tactics, and leave their armour blundering about unsupported, or even lead with AFV. These are usually "tread-head" types who seem to think armoured vehicles are invulnerable.
- drench areas you are going to enter with your supporting arty.
- Lead with infantry in close country, tanks to follow the infantry "sweepers".
- At least have some infantry close by, unsuppressed and moving slowly (to enhance thier spotting ability). Grunts who debus off a half track that just moved umpteen hexes are not "slow" - they are a bunched up juicy target. But they might draw some fire from unspotted infantry...

Cheers
Andy

Re: Close Assaults
 

Thanks for this comprehensive explanation, you make some good points; and I do like the improvements you've made over the years, like 'tank panic'...brilliant :)

I often speak out when I have a possible improvement idea, but I'm fine with 'close assaults' the way they are.

Cross

Re: Close Assaults
 

Great post Andy, clears up a lot of stuff for me in one nice concise post...I have seen certain elements mentioned in forums and docs but it really helps to see it all in one post.

Re: Close Assaults
 

Thanks Andy. His answers are always blunt.
The only point I have no doubt that the speed is in the tank makes it more vulnerable to attacks closed. I think given an anti-tank weapons attack may be, but if the tank is attacked by infantry with grenades, it would be more vulnerable if it moves slowly? Climbing on a tank that moves quickly to be very difficult.