Assault Ratio penalizes combined arms?

[solops]

In looking over the use of the assault ration (in detail for the first time) it seems to me that the attacker is penalized for using combined arms tactics, for example an infantry/armor force derives little benefit from the infantry component when attacking an armor force. Shouldn't there be more dynamic benefits from the presence of the infantry other than its meager anti-armor power? Position, occupation of terrain, spotting, harassing, etc. are all valuable components of combat. This is probably a discussion of ancient history that I missed, but I would be glad to have the rational, pros and cons of the Assault Ratio and its use in determining support explained a bit more than is done in the notes. I am sure that it is well constructed and that I simply do not recognize the issues. Thanks.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: solops

In looking over the use of the assault ration (in detail for the first time) it seems to me that the attacker is penalized for using combined arms tactics, for example an infantry/armor force derives little benefit from the infantry component when attacking an armor force. Shouldn't there be more dynamic benefits from the presence of the infantry other than its meager anti-armor power? Position, occupation of terrain, spotting, harassing, etc. are all valuable components of combat. This is probably a discussion of ancient history that I missed, but I would be glad to have the rational, pros and cons of the Assault Ratio and its use in determining support explained a bit more than is done in the notes. I am sure that it is well constructed and that I simply do not recognize the issues. Thanks.

There is no explicit "combined arms" benefit in TOAW. There is a suggestion about it in the Wishlist, for what that's worth.

However, in my designs I try to effect infantry's close assault ability against tanks by bumping their AT value up one level, if they possess that ability. (That tends to be late-war infantry with early-war infantry having no such bump.)

The Assault Ratio has nothing to do with that. The Assault Ratio is intended to obsolete "ant-unit" tactics that were rampant prior to its introduction.

[Falcon1]

So let's say for instance that I do not use the gamey tactics you mentioned. Do I even need to be concerned about AR at all?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Falcon1

So let's say for instance that I do not use the gamey tactics you mentioned. Do I even need to be concerned about AR at all?

I'd at least check to see that it's above 100. It can be deceptive in some circumstances to just rely on relative combat strength alone. Examples would be high AP, low AT units against armored defenders; High passive combat strength attackers; and high proficiency attackers vs. low proficiency defenders (think German vs. Soviet in 1941, for example).