Slitherine

If you destroy a unit would you not expect the opportunity to exploit this destruction by moving into the vacated space, this is particularily pertinent to cities where you could put considerable effort into taking a city only to have an adjacent enemy move in in their turn.

That could have a meaning if there was a game rule separation between firing and assaulting modes. It would be very nice to have but I am afraid this would make the game a bit more complicated. Perhaps in PzC II?

I'm not sure I see where there is any problem here?

this was also point of discussion in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=23891&highlight=overrun

If you destroy a unit would you not expect the opportunity to exploit this destruction by moving into the vacated space, this is particularily pertinent to cities where you could put considerable effort into taking a city only to have an adjacent enemy move in in their turn.

As I understand, this has nothing to do with the particular tank feature but for all units. The current game mechanics allows a player to fire and move or the reverse process. What is pointed here is a new step that allows units to assault.
Many tabletop miniatures wargames involve movement->fire->assault phases. Firing and assaulting are completely different things.

Now that you know the game mechanics.. just plan ahead.

Now that you know the game mechanics.. just plan ahead.

nice

May be creating rule - "If tank kill unit in city, they can do one more step - to surrender city"? This doing tank usable, not like now - tank absolute no need.

Many tabletop miniatures wargames involve movement->fire->assault phases. Firing and assaulting are completely different things.

Alright, that I can follow because it has always seemed to me a bit silly in PG that battles always occurs in the hex you are ATTACKING, but often that hex is left vacated. On the other hand, this is not TOAW or Combat Command so I guess we can put up with a more simplistic ruling. Maybe one can try to go out on a tangent and assume that so few units were left hanging around after the battle, that for all intense & purposes, the hex is still vacant, haha.

I certainly wouldn't mind an improvement in this area, however the option to select an ASSAULT over a standard attack probably should have higher penalties applied to it, for both the attacker & defender.

I had that happen also, killed the unit in the city but couldn`t move a unit in. Then I accidentally bombed the city which neutralized the flag. I guess that could come in handy n certain situations.

As long as it's optional and not hard-coded. A tank in a city hex is a sitting duck.

They just need to plan ahead. Then they can move a tank into the city.

Quack Quack!

I too like the idea of explicitly separating direct attacks by fire (the specialty of armored fighting vehicles) from assaults (the specialty of infantry). Seems like you could give all units (stand-off) 1 hex attack SA and HA as well as (zero hex) assault SA and HA. All units would fire back with the appropriate attack except when attacked by class 4 (artillery).

This could be hacked in by making all the units you want to be capable of assaulting able to switch modes.
"Exchange Fire" mode, works like attack currently works.
"Assault" mode, unit has a recon type movement of 1.

As I don't think units when assaulting, should be able to move further than their standard movement range (2 for most infantry).
This would make Gerbirgs and Wehrmacht Infantry more useful as well, as you could move 2 switch to Assault mode and attack and then move 1 more.

Would have the side effect that you can move 2, use your "Assault" attack and then move 1 away from the target (perhaps you spotted something you didn't like) into a more favorable position.

The basic assumption for combat is that it takes place in the defender's hex, which is why terrain effects are based on the defender's terrain. Given that, the attacker must already be in the defender's hex to make a meaningful assault (even though the game requires the icons to be in separate, adjacent hexes). The follow-up is what's missing in PzC (and PG2 et al to be fair). Commander, Europe at War (and perhaps other games) gives the attacker the *option* to occupy the defender's hex if the defender vacates it during/after combat. That represents the attacker assaulting the defender's hex, winning, and choosing to hold the ground. Currently, a win does not equate to taking ground in the same combat turn - you have to do it later and perhaps do it all again.

Fimconte wrote: This would make Gerbirgs and Wehrmacht Infantry more useful as well, as you could move 2 switch to Assault mode and attack and then move 1 more.

Would have the side effect that you can move 2, use your "Assault" attack and then move 1 away from the target (perhaps you spotted something you didn't like) into a more favorable position.

NOT correct.

You can not switch after moving.

I am missing, that some of tanks cannot fire for two hexes:( specialy AT flak88

El_Condoro wrote:The basic assumption for combat is that it takes place in the defender's hex, which is why terrain effects are based on the defender's terrain. Given that, the attacker must already be in the defender's hex to make a meaningful assault (even though the game requires the icons to be in separate, adjacent hexes). The follow-up is what's missing in PzC (and PG2 et al to be fair). Commander, Europe at War (and perhaps other games) gives the attacker the *option* to occupy the defender's hex if the defender vacates it during/after combat. That represents the attacker assaulting the defender's hex, winning, and choosing to hold the ground. Currently, a win does not equate to taking ground in the same combat turn - you have to do it later and perhaps do it all again.

Here again this exposes the importance of "attacks by (direct) fire" versus "Close Assaults"! Close assaults (closing with the enemy to kill/capture) DO take place in the defenders "position" (hex) and therefore if the defender is destroyed or retreats the assault unit must be REQUIRED to advance into the vacated hex
because that is where it is ACTUALLY located, i.e., it had to ENTER the hex to close with the enemy. Attacks by fire (stand-off/low angle ranging fire) typically precede assaults to kill/suppress/disrupt the defender in support of the assault. In the case of the attack by fire, if the defender is destroyed or retreats, one of the attackers should have the option to enter the hex IF it has sufficient movement points. This is an important concept that is needed not only to authentically replicate multiple unit attacks but to replicate the mobile "fake" defense concept of retreating to lure the attacker into a planned kill zone.