Close Assaults

[runequester]

I always imagined it represented 2 or 3 men with enough guts sneaking forward, cacking the tank and then tailing it back to the squad as fast as they can

[gila]

Originally Posted by Roman

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.

You should look at it this way,
A fast moving Tank would be vunerable when it encounters infrantry.
It cannot fire in front or to the rear as it passes into occupied or adjecent occupied hex right?
Then grunts can find the weak spots like the rear compartments oops

[Brian61]

I also raised an eyebrow at higher AFV speeds making them more vulnerable to close assaults. In close terrain speed should certainly not make AFVs invulnerable to close attack but in open terrain it pretty much should. In any case it makes no real world sense whatsoever for a fast moving AFV to be more vulnerable than a slow moving one.

Unless the assaulting infantry has the aid of a barrier, a high point (tree/overpass/building) to drop magnetic? mines or grenades from, a slit trench to allow infantry to slap a magnetic mine on an AFV as it passes over, a remotely detonated mine or similar such devices, close assault against an AFV moving 25+ mph seems far fetched at best.

Then again, this is a game. Limits of the game mechanics and engine may make this necessary to avoid exploitation. Still I think a fast moving AFV in open terrain should have, if anything, a bonus against close assault.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Brian61

I also raised an eyebrow at higher AFV speeds making them more vulnerable to close assaults. In close terrain speed should certainly not make AFVs invulnerable to close attack but in open terrain it pretty much should. In any case it makes no real world sense whatsoever for a fast moving AFV to be more vulnerable than a slow moving one.

Unless the assaulting infantry has the aid of a barrier, a high point (tree/overpass/building) to drop magnetic? mines or grenades from, a slit trench to allow infantry to slap a magnetic mine on an AFV as it passes over, a remotely detonated mine or similar such devices, close assault against an AFV moving 25+ mph seems far fetched at best.

Then again, this is a game. Limits of the game mechanics and engine may make this necessary to avoid exploitation. Still I think a fast moving AFV in open terrain should have, if anything, a bonus against close assault.

A fast-moving vehicle is not exercising caution. The crew focus is on the terrain ahead in order to avoid crashes etc into unseen ditches or whatever. The crew do not have your player's "God's eye view" of the map!. The passengers, if any, are getting much more interested in hanging on for dear life, avoiding biting through their tongue as they "chin" the deck while trying to peer out the hatches. Little unseen ground ridges produce real jarring "bumps" - even with a suspension system.

In any case - the usual complaints are coming from those who are into "micro dot details" - it is an abstracted game mechanism to represent the fact that vehicles who blunder into waiting and healthy infantry do not do well. Just try not to charge into infantry at over large speeds (>1/2 MP expended), or in fact, at all. "Track attacks" and "squashing crunchies" did not really happen much at all in reality, the tanks hold back and let leg infantry clear enemy positions.


Cheers
Andy

[Brian61]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

A fast-moving vehicle is not exercising caution. The crew focus is on the terrain ahead in order to avoid crashes etc into unseen ditches or whatever. The crew do not have your player's "God's eye view" of the map!. The passengers, if any, are getting much more interested in hanging on for dear life, avoiding biting through their tongue as they "chin" the deck while trying to peer out the hatches. Little unseen ground ridges produce real jarring "bumps" - even with a suspension system.

Right, no disagreement there. The fast moving vehicle should have little if any opportunity to inflict casualties on the attackers in response to the close attack, absolutely no argument.

On the other hand, the close assaulting infantry is also at a disadvantage. Climbing aboard is nigh impossible, and getting close enough and/or being fast and accurate enough to slap a mine on the tank or throw a satchel charge into the treads would be rather difficult.

But yeah its a micro detail. It just seems a bit at odds with tactical teachings of the German army for panzer units in certain situations: charge out of smoke screens and cross open terrain at a rapid pace. I would have to think that the risk of getting successfully close assaulted by unknown/unspotted infantry had to be significantly outwieghed by the advantage of decreasing accuracy from enemy ATG positions (also unknown/unspotted).

While not as well-read as some, I've been led to believe that successful close assaults by non-dug-in infantry (especially prior to the advent of PIAT/Bazooka/PzFaust) against fast moving AFVs in open terrain had to be every bit as rare as 'assault by tread overrun'.

[DRG]

Define "high speed"

At the risk of enflaming the micro dot crowd into digging out their copies of whatever authority on Nazi weaponry they worship to tell me I'm off my 2 MPH on this tank.......A Pz IV moving cross county at "top speed" in the game is moving at a blistering 11 Mph or just under 18 Kph.

That's not very fast

Also, please keep in mind there are so many variables put into the close assault routine they tend to smooth out the statistics over time. You could easily get a run of luck ( one way or the other ) that has tanks repeatedly killed by infantry then a month later get the same in reverse and depending on your POV that generates a " this ain't working" post.

The game is an abstraction of human behaviour in combat. There will always be someone who thinks we got it all wrong. I've tested the game after complaints about it being too easy to kill tanks and seen 3 successful kills out of 20 tries and the tanks were sitting duck stationary. I've seen 8 kills on the next try.

Andy gave you a quick overview of how things work but there are plenty of abstractions to keep things from being predictable


Don

[JTullman]

This looks like a job for...

an overrun attack.

Too bad they aren't in SP

[runequester]

Originally Posted by DRG

Define "high speed"

At the risk of enflaming the micro dot crowd into digging out their copies of whatever authority on Nazi weaponry they worship to tell me I'm off my 2 MPH on this tank.......A Pz IV moving cross county at "top speed" in the game is moving at a blistering 11 Mph or just under 18 Kph.

That's not very fast
Don

Thats even assuming the tank is moving perpetually. The game gives the current speed based on hexes moved, but if the tank fired during its turn, odds are in real life, it stopped to fire, then resumed moving. So plenty of time to satchel charge the bastards

[Brian61]

Just how fast do you think your average WWII infantryman with equipment, in combat boots, can run cross country and still be able jump on to a moving vehicle or slap a magnetic mine on it? One that is bouncing around enough to give the crew problems?

I really don't know the answer.

I merely asserted that it would not be easier to successfully close assault a 'fast' moving vehicle than a 'slow' one. If anything it would be harder. The post I was responding to stated that the game considers it to be easier.

I don't have any idea where 'high speed' came into it. The term I used was fast, fast as opposed to slow.

Honestly though, I'm getting quite fed up with the tone, attitude and assumptions. You guys have done a great job with WinSPWWII, but you respond to the slightest criticism or external idea like its a personal attack.

This is my last post on these forums.

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Originally Posted by Brian61

Just how fast do you think your average WWII infantryman with equipment, in combat boots, can run cross country and still be able jump on to a moving vehicle or slap a magnetic mine on it? One that is bouncing around enough to give the crew problems?

I really don't know the answer.

I merely asserted that it would not be easier to successfully close assault a 'fast' moving vehicle than a 'slow' one. If anything it would be harder. The post I was responding to stated that the game considers it to be easier.

I don't have any idea where 'high speed' came into it. The term I used was fast, fast as opposed to slow.

Honestly though, I'm getting quite fed up with the tone, attitude and assumptions. You guys have done a great job with WinSPWWII, but you respond to the slightest criticism or external idea like its a personal attack.

This is my last post on these forums.

I don't think anyone would try to run against a tank with all his stuff, i would drop the heavy equipment before trying, all you need is a grenade(or other explosive) to drop onto some vulnerable place, unless you're going to hit it with your shovel
BTW- Since speed is abstracted, a vehicle may be slower than shown after moving, making the task "possible"