I have not been doing this thus far, but wonder if I am missing out on a possible option within an assault hex after rereading the optional combat rules.
Without adding in the complications of new units entering a hex, lets say each side has 3x INF and 3x LT present in the hex.
Can I, as the attacker, take 1x INF and 1x LT, decide to attack with that alone and not the rest, resolve assault combat vs 3x INF + 3x LT of the defenders...
and then on the next activation do the same with the second INF and LT, resolving assault combat against the full host of defenders,
and then on the next activation do the same with the third set?
The rules say each can assault or may decline to join the assault, but doesnt explicitly say whether they must do it together or not, or if declining to join the first assault removes their ability to create or join another.
Why does this even matter? After playing Guadalcanal, Arctic Front, and now starting Jungle Fighting, assualting with morale 9 Finns/Japanese with a leader is already extremely powerful. spreading out attacks with that +3 assault modifier from all this makes it even more absurd (frankly it seems pretty broken to begin with while i was forcing it all into one attack, and i use the term "broken" very rarely).
Of course with base morale 9 you are soaking off most of the combat results without flinching so the extra defender fire is usually of little consequence.
I would say splitting the Assault that way seems legal. You could probably even do it within the same activation segment: initiating 3 separate assaults by activating the whole stack as « Fire ». The rules only specify that all defenders must be attacked as one grouped force (last sentence of 12.3) but there are exceptions too (First Fire 12.43).
The standard wargame axiom is that if something isn't prohibited, then it is allowed. I can't think of anything which would prohibit multiple assaults in a hex, provided any given units and leaders only assault once.
Thanks for the input. I'm going to try this out over a couple of JF scenarios and see if it works out like I think it will.
I think you'll find that making three weak attacks isn't usually as effective as one stronger assault, but it could work if the dice roll right. Of course each individual attacking unit will face the full weight of the defenders so you could really get chewed up. I suppose it all depends on the relative strength of the forces.
I did find one prohibition in the rules. When you first enter the hex to initiate an assault it says, " All units of both sides present in the hex must participate. "
(08-01-2021, 07:12 AM)joe_oppenheimer Wrote: [ -> ]I think you'll find that making three weak attacks isn't usually as effective as one stronger assault, but it could work if the dice roll right. Of course each individual attacking unit will face the full weight of the defenders so you could really get chewed up. I suppose it all depends on the relative strength of the forces.
I did find one prohibition in the rules. When you first enter the hex to initiate an assault it says, " All units of both sides present in the hex must participate. "
In the situations i am talking about, there are no weak attacks. Japanese/Finn assault strength comes pretty much all from column modifiers. The base firepower gain/loss from another INF in the assault is often negligible.
In fact, if the defender has first fire and causes a step loss to remove the +1 for all units havong higher morale, they could be on the same column.
This is partly why it felt "wrong"
[/quote]
Yes, I agree with Joe on both points. However, am I thinking inside the box? One other thought: Would these attacks come in one activation, with three separate actions, or would they come in three separate activations. If three activations, one could each unit assault in separate turns, for example?
I do play that an assault group can split its activities up in an activation. Frequently, I have Disrupted and DM units try to recover morale. This makes the leader(s) have to make decisions as to assignment within the group.l
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.
(08-01-2021, 07:33 AM)triangular_cube Wrote: [ -> ] (08-01-2021, 07:12 AM)joe_oppenheimer Wrote: [ -> ]I think you'll find that making three weak attacks isn't usually as effective as one stronger assault, but it could work if the dice roll right. Of course each individual attacking unit will face the full weight of the defenders so you could really get chewed up. I suppose it all depends on the relative strength of the forces.
I did find one prohibition in the rules. When you first enter the hex to initiate an assault it says, " All units of both sides present in the hex must participate. "
In the situations i am talking about, there are no weak attacks. Japanese/Finn assault strength comes pretty much all from column modifiers. The base firepower gain/loss from another INF in the assault is often negligible.
In fact, if the defender has first fire and causes a step loss to remove the +1 for all units havong higher morale, they could be on the same column.
This is partly why it felt "wrong",
I had a 20 point assault by German paratroopers against Australian INF (3 full strength units with +1 leader Point go nowhere. Those blasted sevens!
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.