Deliberate attacks

[Pford]

One potential issue I have with the game is the ability of units, usually Germans, to make 'free' deliberate attacks along the line, often from Forts, on the enemy and not be compelled to advance into the vacated hex if successful. Yes, there's the supply expenditure, but it seems the attacker should be exposed to some forfeiture of its defensive advantage. Either by advancing or losing entrenchment status.
Thoughts?

[Bentley264]

Actually, most German players would be happy to automatically advance after a successful attack.  Instead, they have to pay movement costs, which can be quite hefty considering zones of control and river effects.
 
Encirclements would be much easier with "free" advances.
 

[JAMiAM]

I tend to agree, somewhat. In my opinion, fortifications represent not only the field works that are created, but the designated fire zones that an actual unit needs to take the time to scope out and deploy for.

Exactly what mechanism should be employed in order to model this, is something that would need to be worked out and balanced. Off the top of my head, I would say that a hex's fort level should lose one full level any turn that a deliberate attack is launched from it, with a floor level of 2. That way, the field works are still modeled, and the unit's displacement from its prepared positions is somewhat modeled.

However, this would overly penalize hexes that have multiple units in them, only some of which attack out. In order to track this, units themselves would need to be tracked for their entrenchment levels (ala TOAW III) rather than the hexes themselves. I don't see them changing the code so drastically as to implement that more realistic model, but the hex level degeneration would be extremely easy to implement.

[2ndACR]

Shush. That is heresy to even suggest. No losing defense levels.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I tend to agree, somewhat. In my opinion, fortifications represent not only the field works that are created, but the designated fire zones that an actual unit needs to take the time to scope out and deploy for.

Exactly what mechanism should be employed in order to model this, is something that would need to be worked out and balanced. Off the top of my head, I would say that a hex's fort level should lose one full level any turn that a deliberate attack is launched from it, with a floor level of 2. That way, the field works are still modeled, and the unit's displacement from its prepared positions is somewhat modeled.

However, this would overly penalize hexes that have multiple units in them, only some of which attack out. In order to track this, units themselves would need to be tracked for their entrenchment levels (ala TOAW III) rather than the hexes themselves. I don't see them changing the code so drastically as to implement that more realistic model, but the hex level degeneration would be extremely easy to implement.

In my opinion, that's way over-thought for play-balance. By this definition, all forts should immediately disappear when vacated by all units in a hex.

Just as defenders will map out their minefields so that when they re-take the terrain, they know where movement is safe, so too will defenders have some method of tracking how their fire zones were established.

And when one considers the nature of the abstraction of fortification in this game, I feel that would be overkill to regulate fortifications as such.

And as someone else said, give me free advances, and I will be deLIGHTed.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I tend to agree, somewhat. In my opinion, fortifications represent not only the field works that are created, but the designated fire zones that an actual unit needs to take the time to scope out and deploy for.

Exactly what mechanism should be employed in order to model this, is something that would need to be worked out and balanced. Off the top of my head, I would say that a hex's fort level should lose one full level any turn that a deliberate attack is launched from it, with a floor level of 2. That way, the field works are still modeled, and the unit's displacement from its prepared positions is somewhat modeled.

However, this would overly penalize hexes that have multiple units in them, only some of which attack out. In order to track this, units themselves would need to be tracked for their entrenchment levels (ala TOAW III) rather than the hexes themselves. I don't see them changing the code so drastically as to implement that more realistic model, but the hex level degeneration would be extremely easy to implement.

In my opinion, that's way over-thought for play-balance. By this definition, all forts should immediately disappear when vacated by all units in a hex.

I don't know how you arrived at that definition. I specifically indicated a floor level of 2, to represent the constructed field works. Did you miss that?[&:]

[Pford]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
I don't see them changing the code so drastically as to implement that more realistic model, but the hex level degeneration would be extremely easy to implement.

That works. The goal is to apply some costs for formations conducting DA attacks out of forts or simply linear positions on a quiet or defensive front. I don't think they should act like proximity bombs.