Why attack with troops?

[Pocus]

The title is provocative on purpose

I see no benefit in attacking an enemy unit with a company, compared to stopping 1 hex away and then setting the troop in ambush (this will instantly trigger a combat 'at distance'). Doing that, you have zero risk from being defeated (you can fail to win the ambush, but there is no adverse effect) and the rewards seem the same to me. So I'm probably missing something, hopefully, or that would be a huge exploit.

[sfbaytf]

I'm wondering the same thing. The risk reward doesn't seem worth the risk.

[Nijis]

This is independent of the ambush issue, but I think there should be some incentive to use troops instead of airpower, helos or artillery close to a village or on a main road. Maybe we don't simulate civilian casualties directly but there could be an HM penalty. Maybe your local commander took the appropriate precautions, but the villagers don't know that. Also, no one with small children appreciates large explosions nearby.

Maybe ambushes should be disabled near villages and main roads too. It seems like they would be hard to do - insurgents could easily have an unarmed civilian drive down a highway to let them know of any ambushes, or speak to sympathizers in the village.

Does anyone who served in Afghanistan have any thoughts on heavy firepower and ambushes in populated areas?

[Christolos]

Hi,

I'm still new to this game and didn't serve in Afghanistan (I was in the Canadian armed forces back in the late 70's early 80's...but that's another story...) and you raise and interesting point. I don't know about heavy firepower in populated areas, but the manual states that ambushes cannot be set within two hexes from a village. Maybe this is far enough for this aspect...?

C

[simovitch]

I'm not sure why ambush triggers 2 hexes away? Even so, it should only trigger during enemy movement I would think. seems like an easy fix (don't they all)?

[DieterNohlen]

Very good point, I always attack with infrantry stopping 1 hex away and then setting the troop in ambush, so there is no risk of suffering losses at all. It's an exploit, certainly, but I think this could easily be fixed in some future patch...

[Every Single Soldier]

We have discussed this at some length in the past and maybe the issue is in the naming of the action, it is more like a planned prepaid attack than a laid ambush. Where the infantry has Intel on the whereabouts of the enemy, a more co-ordinated attack can be planned, with greater firepower concentration and more indirect fire type of engagement.

Currently, the state cannot be accessed when close to a village, primarily to prevent the player from camping units at villages and attacking any approaching enemy units, thereby nullifying any intimidation missions.

This is all part of the 'balancing act', the hardest task of them all ....

[DieterNohlen]

Excellent, now it's clear, more than an ambush, it's co-ordinated, carefully planned attack on an enemy that has been detected and located. With that logic, it makes perfect sense, now I can keep using this kind of attack with a clear conscience, thank you!!

[sfbaytf]

One thing I've noticed in Campaign I'm playing is it does pay to attack with troops in the first turn or 2 if you can. You face militia and the odds of success are 70%. This will give your troops experience and once they begin to level up they become much more effective. I don't know if this applies to other Campaigns as I'm still working on winning the first one.

The Taliban appear to be some tougher hombres than militia.

[simovitch]

We have discussed this at some length in the past and maybe the issue is in the naming of the action, it is more like a planned prepaid attack than a laid ambush. Where the infantry has Intel on the whereabouts of the enemy, a more co-ordinated attack can be planned, with greater firepower concentration and more indirect fire type of engagement.

But is it supposed to triggered from 2 hexes away?

[CCIP-subsim]

I would say: if in doubt about balance, keep a record of how the outcomes play out for you! Best way to demonstrate an issue like that is some statistics

I don't believe it triggers across two hexes - I think it's just one additional one away. I have to confess though, I don't actually use that action very much - I prefer to attack and move again, so stopping for an ambush often feels like a waste of movement potential to me.

[kongxinga]

Wow I did not know that ambush works if the Bad guys are already next to your troops. I assumed there was mutual detection. This feels kinda buggy. I think ambush should only work if the bad guys move into the ambush radius. If there are already in it it should not trigger and should actually give a malus to your troops for trying to hide in plain sight.

You should prioritise using troops to attack if possible, namely because your ANA need the experience, and Taliban and militia as exp bags are limited, and even a failed engagement gives exp. So long as you can extract your wounded ANA to heal, or have other assets on standby to finish the job you should be ok. Plus wasn't there a rule that direct engagements sometimes revealed intel on enemy positions, at least more often than other engagements, representing questioning POWs?

[darthun]

@ kongxinga : read what the dev said above. it's working as intended.

Also, note that if your attack fails, the enemy can move away while retreating, and attack anything else on it's retreat path, while you wont be able to catch up on them. I took alot of wounds and lost some birds because of failed ambush. It's not OP at all when you think about the consequences of failing.