ORIGINAL: Alfred
On the evidence presented to date, I'm not impressed with your opponent's use of game mechanics. In particular his land warfare technique is lacking. Most egregious is his regular use of shock attacks instead of bombardment or deliberate attack. Not that you are totally blameless in this area and against a better opponent you would have been forced to pay a much heavier price but in comparison to your opponent, your use of shock attack is much more restrained.
In AE, a shock attack should be the exception rather than the rule. It should never be the first attack of a siege unless there is overwhelming verified evidence that the enemy is extremely week. In a siege, Shock attack is equivalent to the me storming of a fortified position after a breach in the walls has been achieved. Until then progress is measured by digging ever closer the assault trenches, the effects of attrition upon the defenders resulting from cutting supply lines, disease and intermittent long range trebuchet and archery fire.
Shock attack places more emphasis on the firepower values but most players who rush to use it overlook the effect of fortifications. Rushing a shock attack against any defender who has any sort of fortification level is usually a boon for the defenders for the damage inflicted by superior enemy firepower will be mitigated by their fortification level whereas the attacker who almost certainly will have a lower entrenchment level (and it will always be zero if they shock attack immediately upon arrival in the hex) than the defenders, is fully exposed to the full force of defender firepower, even if that is inferior to the attackers own firepower values.
An unsuccessful Shock Attack is much more damaging to the attacker than a failed Deliberate Attack. The malus of failure is not fully captured by the Combat Report. Failure results in significant unit debilitation as measured by fatigue, morale and disruption levels. All intangibles not captured by the Combat Report but key inputs into the combat algorithms. To follow up a failed Shock Attack with another Shock Attack after a couple of days resting in between, will usually not be sufficient to reduce the fatigue, morale and disruption levels. Instead what is being set up is a carousel of failure feeding upon itself.
Alfred
I actually was not even aware that the attacker benefited from their sides fortification levels, assuming the fortifications only applied to the defender. That is invaluable information!
Also tracking with the context you are giving on the need for restraint with Shock Attacks. By the end of the campaign I very seldom used it - learning the hard way from a few earlier attacks that it is more akin to finishing off a defeated enemy with a bayonet charge.
On a different note Alfred, you wouldn't happen to know the answer to the earlier question I posed (post 97) on Chinese zombie formations would you?
