Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As a long time 40k player and a few other min games i have learned that assault our hand to hand fighting is never a good thing its better to just shoot . so why do i find assault used so much in fow i doubt there was really that many bayonet charges in WWII

To feed the troll? or to not feed the troll? That is the question

Why does it represent a bayonet charge and not a close assault of a position using SMGs, close range fire and grenades?

Quite literally hundreds of assaults in WW2... how else do you think they took enemy positions... occasionally the bayonet was used, or a sharpened entrenching tool, pistol etc. But most of the time its close range firepower with grenades to decide the issue up close. But it was always standing orders in the British Army to fix bayonets when attacking.

Id suggest perhaps a book on WW2 close assault techniques rather than History Channel pulp.

 Reaver83 wrote:
To feed the troll? or to not feed the troll? That is the question

Let's ignore who's asking the question for right now, and just assume we're helping out some new player with proper grammar capabilities.

Assault in FoW is pretty important - in fact, a lot of games are decided in the assault phase. A supported, dug-in and concealed infantry platoon is going to be near impossible to shoot out before the game runs out of time. Those advantages are neutralized in an assault - then it gets down to training and numbers, and a bit of luck. Even tanks try to steer clear of getting too close to infantry, since even a rifle team has the chance to muck up a tank's treads or get a rifle into a viewing hole.

Which is also where a certain forum member's questions about smoke and artillery come into play. Smoke is essential if you want to make it harder for defensive fire in an assault to hit you, and using artillery to pin an enemy platoon will drastically decrease the number of long-range shots they're getting off.

I recommand you to see Band of Brothers episode 3, carentan.
on that scene easy company enters carentan, soldiers assault MG on window and throw grenade to kill it, and following combats occur in very close quarter along the street. you can imagine assault in fow happens like that.

Assaults or Heavy artillery are the only sure ways to clear buildings in FoW.

 buo-ong wrote:
I recommand you to see Band of Brothers episode 3, carentan.
on that scene easy company enters carentan, soldiers assault MG on window and throw grenade to kill it, and following combats occur in very close quarter along the street. you can imagine assault in fow happens like that.

Definitely this. It just represents close range combat to take a position, not necessarily soldiers running in with bayonets.

And yes, it most definitely has a place in FoW. Killing infantry in bullet-proof cover is a PITA, and especially if they are on an objective pinning them first and a solid assault is an effective method.

 buo-ong wrote:
I recommand you to see Band of Brothers episode 3, carentan.
on that scene easy company enters carentan, soldiers assault MG on window and throw grenade to kill it, and following combats occur in very close quarter along the street. you can imagine assault in fow happens like that.

Or the entire final battle in Saving Private Ryan which in FoW would have been all one big multiplatoon assault. Range Combat in FoW really represents exchanges of fire at standoff ranges. The assault step is what represents dynamic close range combat in all forms (except not tank versus tank, probably for balance reasons).

Assault to me is baynot charges not close rang fire fights. should be something different for close in fire fight

Assault to me is baynot charges not close rang fire fights...

And "to you" Monopoly (tm) might be a tasty breakfast cereal but it's of no relevance to the game design as it stands.

So assault is a baynot charge

 infinite_array wrote:


Let's ignore who's asking the question for right now, and just assume we're helping out some new player with proper grammar capabilities.

Admirable attitude, but a waste of time when dealing with this user.

Bezerker Saberhagen wrote:

Assault to me is baynot charges not close rang fire fights...

And "to you" Monopoly (tm) might be a tasty breakfast cereal but it's of no relevance to the game design as it stands.

Much more appropriate, exalt.

zilka86 wrote:
So assault is a baynot charge

Given that tanks can assault in FoW, I have to ask - how do they "fix bayonets"?

Duh.

Dug in infantry, especially veteran, are basically impossible to remove with normal ranged attacks.


The only way to remove dug in infantry reliably is with,

1) Bombardment with a 4+ firepower or better(ranging in is the tough part though)

2) Flamethrowers

3) Assaults


Tank firepower can work, but they're going to need 5s or 6s to hit. And they're not going to have the number of shots to make a dent.

Assaults are the quickest way to remove dug in infantry. They're quite bloody by nature, so you do need to gauge if its worth sacrificing your own infantry to take out the enemy.

Assault is decisive. If a unit is in bullet proof cover you can shoot at it till the cows come home and even though you may pin it you will be lucky to kill a thing with small arms. With assault you get a result.

I was playing a game the other day where platoon of US Paratroopers where in a building. The only way to get them out was with an assault. Just try to pin them in place first otherwise the defensive fire will stop you in your tracks.

It's all about the Jump-off position.

You fight your way up, get within 50 yards, set your rifle to Automatic, maybe get out your Bayonet and then assault with Grenades, automatic weapons SMG's etc.

Grenades and mortars are where you pile on the Enemy casualties, you pin them down with Fire and Suppression Fire, maneouvre up close, Grenade them, kill the survivors, move on.

Assault in FOW simulates, the close range firefights and battles which take place, it isn't bayonet charges per se but more this kind of thing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eZMkleDjWI

Rather than bayonet charges. Plus remember it's simulating 4 men teams, it's not individuals firing at individuals.

In defence it's all about suppressing or stopping the assault dead, by killing them as quick as possible, FOW simulates this well, because if you are in turn pinned, it's very difficult to take an Assault under Effective fire.

zilka86 wrote:
So assault is a baynot charge

That isn't the way it's defined or portrayed in the FOW rules.

 motyak wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:


Let's ignore who's asking the question for right now, and just assume we're helping out some new player with proper grammar capabilities.

Admirable attitude, but a waste of time when dealing with this user.

It's more of a 'someone else will ask this question, so we can just answer it here and refer to it later.'

 Hordini wrote:

zilka86 wrote:
So assault is a baynot charge

That isn't the way it's defined or portrayed in the FOW rules.

That'd be because I doubt zilka has even seen the rulebook, never mind read it.

He's also starting to annoy the FoW Facebook group, too. Reaver can - and will probably be only too happy to - attest to this.

Testify

Seriously people don't feed the troll

Looking at his posts in other sections, I wouldn't bother with him.

 Reaver83 wrote:
Testify

Seriously people don't feed the troll

While it would be great for all of the troll posts to have originated from one poster, sadly the flags don't match.

Well, like Infinite_array said, someone else will probably be looking for some legitimate clarification on this at some point, and if the answer already exists in this thread, that will make it easier for them if they are looking through this section.

assaults are a key component for infantry to clear out infantry..but for tanks its a waste of time for the most part.due to everyone and there brother having piats and bazookas and Panzerfausts these days.

If you want to absolutely crush the veteran turtle defenders..just bring some recce and breakthru / bunkerbusters.

Lift gone to ground with the recce and unload with the breakthru in the open or bunkerbusters if they're in buildings and those vets will be cleared out in a turn or two.

Then send in the clean up crew and take over the objective.

lining up 8 volleyfire rof 2 SU-122's (16 shots, reroll misses, no infantry save roll 2+ fp check) 12 inches from a turtle platoon of dug in vets is a sure fire way to get them to change their build..
having 10more T-34's that infiltrate up with recce teams with tank escorts ready to assault after the su-122's weaken them..its a thing of beauty.

bloodydrake wrote:
assaults are a key component for infantry to clear out infantry..but for tanks its a waste of time for the most part.due to everyone and there brother having piats and bazookas and Panzerfausts these days.

True in Late War, but in Early War tank assaults are downright deadly; Lord help you if a platoon of tanks reaches one of your infantry platoons.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Reaver83 wrote:
To feed the troll? or to not feed the troll? That is the question

Let's ignore who's asking the question for right now, and just assume we're helping out some new player with proper grammar capabilities.

Assault in FoW is pretty important - in fact, a lot of games are decided in the assault phase. A supported, dug-in and concealed infantry platoon is going to be near impossible to shoot out before the game runs out of time. Those advantages are neutralized in an assault - then it gets down to training and numbers, and a bit of luck. Even tanks try to steer clear of getting too close to infantry, since even a rifle team has the chance to muck up a tank's treads or get a rifle into a viewing hole.

Which is also where a certain forum member's questions about smoke and artillery come into play. Smoke is essential if you want to make it harder for defensive fire in an assault to hit you, and using artillery to pin an enemy platoon will drastically decrease the number of long-range shots they're getting off.

I agree with that attitude not because I think the op gives a damn about the answer but because someone else may come across this thread with the same question and have it answered.

To the Op just because assault means one thing in 40k doss not mean that it means the same thing in other games.

So who is gonna be the first to model that bayonet tank? Tape a steak knife to a tank?

That's stupid, you should tape steak knives to hamsters



Also glad to learn that all the assault and CQC I learned in the military wasn't actual assault training because it didn't focus around bayonet fighting.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That's stupid, you should tape steak knives to hamsters



Also glad to learn that all the assault and CQC I learned in the military wasn't actual assault training because it didn't focus around bayonet fighting.

I imagine the actual amount of hand to hand stuff you learn is minimal, because you have a bloody gun.

And IIRC from what I've learned a lot of it focuses on increasing distance to allow the use of your firearm.