I've been reading up a bit on how the assault waves work, and it seems like it's a very powerful tactic to the point of almost imbalanced. Would it work too much in the defender's favor if casualties on the attacker are applied first before they can roll their own dice?

yes. Though assault waves are most usefull if you can pin/disrupt groups of units before launching your assaults.

I seem to need to re-read the rules once again... where are the rules for assault waves?

It is simply the Assault action used in sequence, to either gradualy errode a stronghold, or to push through a series of hexes. The assault wave tacktic allowes squads to fight at close range, with full firepower, despite movine. On top of that it can often be managed that they fight several times in a single round.

... and also very hard to pull off succesfully if the defender knows what he's doing.

Sometimes it can be done following a sucessfull artellery or morter attack.

As previously stated, units supporting a sequence of assault actions against one hex can end up firing multiple times during a game round even when fatigued after taking an action, if they are adjacent to the hex being assaulted. Although a skillful player who foresees that he will be subject to "wave assaults" can set up defenses to delay or disrupt such a sequence of assault actions, it is nevertheless one of the most powerful attacking mechanisms in the game. Personally, although I understand the attempt to model supporting fire by allowing adjacent fatigued units to fire, I think it should be reconsidered as the best model for the following reasons:

1. The game round tries to simulate a form of simultaneous movement by allowing for alternating player action turns. I like this style of game turn v. the traditional igo-ugo format. That said, using previously fatigued units to support a current action seems to allow units involvement in multiple actions at the same time that in reality would lead to a saturation of a unit's cognitive and physical capabilities.

2. The three action game round system also allows players to experience and manage the sequencing and synchronizing of combined arms tactics. As previously stated, using an action to soften up a hex for a potential assault is an example of this. Moreover, sequencing multiple assaults has the potential to carry the hex and break into the defender's position or capturing an objective. However, if the early assaults fail to capture the hex, the attacker can build up a mass of fatigued, adjacent supporting units to be used in future assaults. Assaulting by its very nature is intense, exhausting and often overwhelming in reality, especially for an assaulting unit that was repulsed with losses. All this is occurring within a simultaneous time of mere minutes and I wonder if all those fatigued units would be capable of multiple support missions.

Keeping in mind the simplistic nature of the models used in the game's architecture, I am not arguing that using fatigued units to support current actions needs to be deleted, only that it has certain issues. I am not arguing for an ASL solution to replace it. That said, there is an alternative version of assault that mirrors the concentrated fire action. Concentrated fire allows multiple fresh units to support the action and then all become fatigued. An alternative version of supporting assaults would be to allow multiple fresh units (up to three) to move and assault a hex. The primary assaulting unit would attack at full FP whereas the supporting units could be limited to half FP if desired in order to simulate the command and control issues involved in coordinating such an action. All units would be allowed to enter the hex if successful.

These are thoughts and opinions for consideration and should in no way be construed as disparaging towards FFG or the TOI game. A great gaming company and a great game.

But is the timeframe for a turn/round realy mere minutes? or does it represent hours? Nobody knows I think.

kookoobah said:

How can something that is available to both sides be unbalanced? Also, isn't being able to set an action up effectively or keep something from being set up effectively what the game is about?

It can be imbalanced because it is very often only avalible to one side, as the other simply does not have the units to utilize it, or does not have the inclination to advance at all. To use it you need overwhelming numerical superiority in a sector of the map.

But I do not find it imbalanced. It is powerfull however and something designers need to be very conscious about.

Hefsgaard said:

So, anytime I have something you don't have, that I can use effectively, then that makes that thing unbalanced?

Sounds like some people need to defend or counter attack better.

Try reading what I write. I never indicated that!

No - having something the other side does not have is not unbalanced by itself. But having something very powerfull that the other side does not have, CAN be very unballanced. Try imagine that only the dealer could use Trumps?

I do not feel totaly confident that the designers had any idear how the players, myself included, would run with the assault rules and make this powerful tactic. But I repeat that I do not find it imbalanced as a general rule. Just as I do not find MGs or mortars imbalanced as a general rule.

Some times you just can't defend against it. You may be pinned by lucky bombardment, or clever play of cards. Mostly you will just not have the units to make the counter attack on the objective. Sometimes you can not reenforce or retreat in time. Just bad luck.

longagoigo said:

Hefsgaard said:

I'm not sure what you think I'm not reading, as I quoted you. It may not be what you mean, but it is a valid way of expressing what you write.

As to your example about the dealer and trumps, again that is not unbalanced, as long as everyone gets to be the dealer in turn.

A good commander should always try to find the best technique to use under the circumstances. That is called "good Generaling", not unbalanced.

I think we can agree that a technique available to both sides, applied equally, is fair and balanced. At issue is whether or not the rules mechanics allow for assault techniques effects that are overweighted in comparison to other techniques available. In other words, is it so powerful that it warps the historical accuracy and flavor of the game? Is it to powerful within the architecture of the system. Are the mechanics perceived as too favorable? Are they radically different from other rules some way?

The assault "module" is the only one that allows fatigued units to fire(5,6?)...and fire(4,5,6)...and fire(4,5,6)...and fire(4,5,6) after taking an action (fire and move?). We all know how this works and we accept it since its written into the rules, but it is a divergence from an otherwise consistent underlying framework. The only other rule that allows units to fire multiple times are under OP Fire and then, only for crewed MGs, which to me doesn't seem unrealistic. The OP Fire rules balance this potentially too-powerful defensive technique by preventing the OP Fire MG from shooting at a target unit in each and every LOS hex moved thru. Therein, the rules balance the technique. Otherwise the OP Fire technique would deter the active player from moving. Battle Front completely eliminated the overwatch technique from its Flames of War rules for this reason (a decision I disagree with since it was a key tactic used in reality).

Some would argue that properly positioned OP Fire units can disrupt a "wave" sequence of assaults and that this is in fact the balancing yang to the assault's yin. That argument has some value but uses another technique for balancing, which is not the same as incorporating an internal check and balance to a very powerful rule (as OP Fire does).

I would be very interested to know what playtesting argument was made that pasted this version of assault into the rules.

Just because something CAN be unbalanced, it does not follow that it IS unballanced!

Good generaling may not be the same as good playing. 40K showed that in plenty.

Bazookajoe said:

The internal check you're talking about can be seen in the fact that:

- this is the only form of attack that allows the target to fight back at the same time and at full strength (which, at close range, can really cripple the squad leading the assault)

- it strips the attacker from cover while leaving the defender full benefit of his own protection (which boosts the effect of the previous point)

- the nature of the assault forces the attacker forward which is often a vulnerable position, leaving him open to counter-assaults

Those devastating follow-up assaults mentioned may seem overpowered and unbalanced at first glance, but they can only happen if the defender allows them to. If you leave units in isolated unsupported positions, they're doomed. If you let an entire flank end up fatigued while the enemy has multiple fresh units still available and in range, you're doomed. If you choose to stand your ground against overwhelming numbers and support, you're doomed.

... in other words, assault simply rewards good tactics and punnishes failures.

In fact the assault wave tactic is Not at its most effective when attacking an isolated squad. It is most devastating when applied to numberous pinned/disrupted squads, that are attacked in sequence, allowing the attacker to crush the local defenders. Losing assaults is a fast way to Rout.

Latro said:

"The internal check you're talking about can be seen in the fact that:

- this is the only form of attack that allows the target to fight back at the same time and at full strength (which, at close range, can really cripple the squad leading the assault)

- it strips the attacker from cover while leaving the defender full benefit of his own protection (which boosts the effect of the previous point)

- the nature of the assault forces the attacker forward which is often a vulnerable position, leaving him open to counter-assaults"

These are excellent points regarding the defender's advantages and risks involved in committing troops to an assault, but are external v. internal. In other words, they are risks the attacker assumes, verses an internal rule that limits the assaults effects or scope. Two examples: 1. Concentrated Fire allows supporting squads to participate (combined fire), but only at 1/2 FP...imagine the effects on the game if supporting squads fired at full FP. 2. OP Fire allows MGs to fire multiple times, but but units capable of making multiple Op Fire attack during a round may only make one attack against a single enemy unit during that unit's activation.

Assault is the only action that allows the target to fight back, but not the only form of attack/defense resolved during the opponent's turn. Op Fire allows the non-active player to attack during the opponent's turn and with immediate effect.

The only real issue that I have with the assault rules is the allowance of fatigued units to support. In a perfect world, perfect troops might support an assault even if they were fatigued. In reality, fog of war, confusion, fear, etc., usually limit capabilities except for the most highly trained, highly motivated troops.

In a perfect world troops would not hold little signs over their heads, showing that they are useless..... It is a game.

Actually, in a perfect game little plastic men would not hold signs over their head...but I get your point.