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.

Re: Close Assaults
 

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 :)

Re: Close Assaults
 

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:shock:

Re: Close Assaults
 

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.

Re: Close Assaults
 

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

Re: Close Assaults
 

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'.

Re: Close Assaults
 

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

Re: Close Assaults
 

This looks like a job for...

an overrun attack.

Too bad they aren't in SP

Re: Close Assaults
 

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 :D

Re: Close Assaults
 

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"

Re: Close Assaults
 

I am just going to put an assumption in here no idea how works in real life n no training but what I would do if platoon leader.
Vs slow or stationary vehicle move to engage directly
vs faster moving vehicle quite possibly heard or seen split up spread out to cover where you hope its going n let it come to you. If it doesnt tough luck but spliting up means your harder to spot & covered more ground.
Once close you dash for it humans can accelerate extremly fast from stationary for a short burst easily catch a tank doing 10 MPH Ive jumped on moving trains so running beside to lob something should not be impossible & dont forget for those few moments hes probably superman riding adrenaline acutely aware of everything & doing the whole thing in seeming slow motion he has a few moments when he can do things that are normaly impossible & I can assure you for those few moments combat gear will not stop him. He will be able to move faster fully laden than he can move normaly in real life because his bodies gone into overdrive to try & keep him alive.
If the vehicle passes close to any sort of cover it could soon be in all sorts of trouble & then there are the nutters/hero types to worry about.
how about that USA paratrooper on D-Day who admitedly had a bazooka he was on the flank put a baz round in the cottage command was using killed 2 tanks & immobilised a 3rd before being killed.
Thats one guy took out 3 tanks & local command effectivly stopping the attack dead.

Re: Close Assaults
 

Some points:
- I think a slow and cautious of the tank may be good to avoid detection.
- Once the tank is detected, it is appropriate to leave quickly making evasive maneuvers? or continue to move slowly for best target? In the event that the tank is threatened.
- I also believe that the assault closed must be differentiated with or without anti-tank weapons. It is obvious that is done with anti-tank weapons have more chance of success.
I still believe that in the case of an closed assault without anti-tank weapons there is more chance of success if the tank walk slow.
I found an interesting article.

http://www.ww2f.com/military-trainin...-vehicles.html

others:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/...fantry_weapons
http://www.quikmaneuvers.com/german_...k_tactics.html

Re: Close Assaults
 

Considerations other game:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...le/ah20030818a

Re: Close Assaults
 

In the game faster=easier to ambush but harder to hit with fire(not assault)
IRL a man can run faster than an old tank for a few seconds, drop grenades on it and run away(or stop and let the tank continue:D)

Re: Close Assaults
 

Here you can get the 1942 german service regulations for close assaults:

http://www.lexpev.nl/downloads/h.dv....mpfung1942.pdf

It is in German, but there are a lot of pictures.

Re: Close Assaults
 

The following translated German document on infantry close-combat against Russian tanks on the Eastern Front was published in Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 23, April 22, 1943.
http://www.ww2f.com/military-trainin...-vehicles.html

Re: Close Assaults
 

the link looks to be broken. I'd love to see it though

Re: Close Assaults
 

Still talking about this close assault?
The game strives to simulate real life by doing what some people may think as "unrealistic". It's a mere abstraction, the REAL meaning of which is possessed only by a select few (Keith Brors, Gary Grigsby, Don, Andy, etc).
Even the game mechanics of turn-based system is an effort to simulate real life by using gamey mechanism. There is no such thing as turn-based time in real life, yet, the end result in the game is quite realistic. In contrast, if the game should adopt real-time mechanism, the game would turn out to be very GAMEY in terms of the end-result. Look at Close Combat series, for example.

Re: Close Assaults
 

I rather liked the Close Combat games, but I didn't play all of them I must admit.

THey have their quirks though :)

Re: Close Assaults
 

Yea, I do still love them until now, but in a different way. I play them mostly when I need the urge to shove around troops and fire wildly without any micro-management/detailed thinking. That is to say, Close Combat games are designed to have fast-paced gameplay (semi FPS, semi board-game). The end-result for the game's REAL-TIME mechanism is obvious, especially when it comes to commanding unit larger than 1 company; I should rely much on the DUMB AI controlling my troops.

Re: Close Assaults
 

yeah, when hte battles get too big, it gets unwieldy. I thought the original game hit it the best. The engine breaks down when you are trying to maneuver 15 different teams or vehicles

Re: Close Assaults
 

Somewhat on topic, here is an movie example of some Finns close assaulting a Soviet flamethrower tank (T-26 variant) during Winter War. Great example for how to do it in SPWAW too:

1.) Drive away supporting infantry and isolate the tank
2.) Use small arms fire to ensure that the tank is buttoned up
3.) Immobilize the tank with a handy log
4.) Lob a nice Molotov cocktail on the engine deck of the now immobilized tank
5.) Gun down the poor bastards (=crew) exiting the tank
6.) Get back into safe position
7.) Smoke


As for the game uses of the close assault, I have spotted that one handy aspect of the close assault is that even if it is not succesful, it causes a decent amount of suppression on the tank in question. Thus isolated tanks driving into your positions can be rendered temporarily harmless by having a whole platoon assault them simultaneously (preferably after first using small arms fire to button up the crew) - even if you don't manage to destroy the tank, there is a good chance that it is reduced to retreating or routed status. And if you managed to immobilize the tank, heavy suppression means that the crew is likely to bail out and try escaping on foot.

Re: Close Assaults
 

Well, I haven't experienced this in-game. Is it really possible for the crew to bail out after heavily suppressed & immobilized?

What you listed there is quite good, but I don't think it is commonplace for a single infantry squad. Usually it would take more than one squad (preferably a whole platoon) to successfully launch a close assault against a couple AFVs.

Re: Close Assaults
 

Yes it's possible, happens a lot actually, especially after artillery attacks, they usually damage the light armor and supress them heavily.

[quote=RightDeve;774390]Actually this very comman occurance,
If a tank is in rout status whether immobolized or not, depends if the crew fails a morale check if they will bail.

Re: Close Assaults
 

Recently, in a PBEM game, a Russian sniper immobilized to a Panther with a close assault. After a few more turns, the crew left the tank. So you do beat the sniper:D. But not quite. If I remember correctly, the crew killed the sniper :doh:and then killed the crew with machine guns.
Crazy.:eek:

Re: Close Assaults
 

Which is why you shouldn't tackle an enemy AFV with a single infantry squad. If you place your infantry well, you can assault an AFV with 2 or 3 squads from different hexes when it enters a certain hex. In a pinch, you could even place two squads in a single hex to get more units to assault an advancing vehicle.

As for how likely a squad is to assault an enemy tank, a lot depends on the experience. Rookie Soviet conscripts and their kin might easily shy off (but you are supposed to have lots of them), but more veteran units can be better relied on pulling an assault on an enemy tank that gets close.

Another important thing is that when the enemy vehicles close in, they should be ideally isolated from each other, allowing your infantry to concentrate on a few individual targets. Clever use of terrain is rewarded here, as is a generous usage of smoke - so before assaulting a target, consider lobbing a few smoke rounds in various directions. Flame-throwers are also handy, besides causing possibly horrible damage and massive suppression, they are also likely to start a fire that will further restrict visibility.

And remember to suppress the target with small arms fire (MGs and anti-tank rifles are handy) before closing in.

And any sort of assault is likely to cause some suppression, regardless of how likely it is to fail. So even scout units and such can be used in a pinch to pull a few assaults just to scare the crews.

And don't forget that the presence of destroyed vehicles causes suppression on units near-by, so once you get enough vehicles destroyed it will get a lot easier to scare any further enemy vehicles trying to enter the area. Never mind that those burning wrecks emit smoke that further cuts on the visibility.

And of course any sort of damage is likely to cause further suppression, so it can be a good idea to continue lobbing grenades and ATR shots on any early war tanks close by - you might just manage to cause the lucky hit that might cause a point of damage and a bunch of extra suppression.

Re: Close Assaults
 

Well I was going to make a reference to freight-hopping, but Imp already did that.

I'll just say that if the tank movement is abstracted, then so too is the infantry movement. For all we know, the reason these guys are so good at dealing with fast-moving tanks is because they're throwing grenades down from overhanging tree branches, a position from which they would have been easily spotted by a less hasty crew.

Re: Close Assaults
 

Game wise you should always aim to assault tanks with multiple units even if have AT weaponry, each attack suppreses the tank more meaning the next has a greater chance of success. Thats how you kill them if dont have AT weaponry like early Russians swarm the tank, need to cause several attackers will suffer tank fear & run if all they have is a grenade

Re: Close Assaults
 

I've managed to knock out Abrams tanks with swarms of Palestinian protestors. :D

If your squad fails an assault but still has firing opportunities left, shoot at the tank. Grenades immobilize once in a blue moon, each shot further demoralizes the crew (making further assaults by other infantry more likely to succeed), and if you're persistent enough the tank will run away or the crew might bail out and get shot.

Re: Close Assaults
 

There was a spirited discussion of close assaults at another website (for Spwaw) a couple years ago. It got a little hyperbolic, with some proponents of infantry suggesting that "naked Finns" or any squad with a real He-Man could take out tanks, while others argued that only formations with "dedicated" AT weapons (including flamethrowers, AT mines, bazookas, etc.) would plausibly assault them with any significant frequency.

Whatever the pros and cons---personally I'm inclined to agree with the latter view, although my experience is purely anecdotal and academic (Stuart Hill's By Tank into Normandy, Ambrose's Band of Brothers and Citizen Soldiers, Werth's Russia at War, plus others I've forgotten)--I'm satisfied that SPWW2 does a reasonable job of reconciling
tank terror with infantry determination. Basically, infantry in the open hardly stands a chance, while dug-in or fortified grunts had best be avoided. My pet peeve with Spwaw was that even tank crews from destroyed AFV's, with nothing but "assorted small arms," could (and often did) kill an MBT. So far in SPWW2 this hasn't happened (yet!).

My thanks to the designers and programmers of SPWW2 for making this terrific simulation possible. Cheers!