Declining to attack in CC

Tuomo

Keeper of the Funk
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
3,816
Reaction score
3,569
Location
Rock Bottom
Country
llUnited States
99.whatever % of the time, if I'm in CC, I opt to attack. And the few times that I haven't, it's probably because I forgot.

But I've always had the feeling that I'm missing out on some sneaky tactic that I should be using to my advantage.

So, somebody walk me through it. When's it advantageous to pass up a perfectly good CC attack?

Bonus question - does anything change if I'm Concealed and there was no Ambush?
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
12,981
Reaction score
7,696
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
99.whatever % of the time, if I'm in CC, I opt to attack. And the few times that I haven't, it's probably because I forgot.

But I've always had the feeling that I'm missing out on some sneaky tactic that I should be using to my advantage.

So, somebody walk me through it. When's it advantageous to pass up a perfectly good CC attack?

Bonus question - does anything change if I'm Concealed and there was no Ambush?
You are in CC with a German AFV which has a sN (Nahverteidigungswaffe). Some of these beasts have an awesome MA but lousy MG Armament (the Jagdpanther, or jagdpanzer IV for example). They do have this sN, though.

18360

18361

However...

They can only attack you with their sN if their vehicle has been attacked in CC (unless the AFV contrieves to Ambush you, which is highly unlikely).

" A11.622 CLOSE DEFENSE WEAPON SYSTEM: Beginning in July 1944, certain German AFV are equipped with a close defense anti-personnel projector (Nahverteidigungswaffe) in their turret roof. It can be used to make a HE attack on the IFT if the AFV is BU, but only during the CCPh after the AFV or its Personnel Escort has been attacked in that CCPh (11.31) [EXC: an AFV may fire a Nahverteidigungswaffe before being attacked if it qualifies as the Ambusher; 11.4]..."

So if you don't attack it in CC, you might stand a fine chance to survive the CCPh. The beast is then bound by Target Selection limits and can only fire on your pesky, expendable unit in its hex (unless moving out). You might thus be able to 'paralyze' it for an otherwise dangerous Prep Fire shot against your AFVs or other valuable units.

If the beast tries to VBM-freeze you, it is even better not to attack it. Because in this case, you will be moving next. This can allow you to just move up to the beast which can't do anything using a tank of yours that would otherwise stand no chance. The beast being bound by Target Selection limits, you pull up ADJACENT, stop and fire using Double Point Blank range at some side or rear-armor facing.

von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
12,981
Reaction score
7,696
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
Bonus question - does anything change if I'm Concealed and there was no Ambush?
In a recent game, this played a role.

PTO, I was the Gurkhas / British fighting against attacking Japanese.

British Turn, I advanced into CC. In the CC-situation, my British unit was Concealed in Jungle.
The VC required me to prevent the Japanese from exiting units off the board and collect CVP.

In this case, I did elect not to attack them. The Japanese had less FP than me. I seem to recall I had a Concealed 447 vs. a Japanese 347. No Ambush.

So I figured, as the CC was initiated by me and not by the Japanese, it would not be Hand-to-Hand.

The Japanese would have his 3FP vs. my 4FP for a basic 1:2 odds ratio. Since I was concealed, he was halved, so 1.5FP vs. 4FP for a basic 1:4 odds ratio. The Japanese would need to roll a 3 or less Kill# to affect me - a very small chance.

I would block movement through the hex. I might even survive Japanese Prep Fire 3FP x3 TPBF x0.5 vs. Concealed = 4.5FP @ +2TEM Dense Jungle in his subsequent turn. I would at least buy time.

Had I instead attacked, it would have been merely at 1:1 odds. My odds for an Ambush were -2 Concealed, +1 Attacker in Jungle, +1 vs. Stealthy, so not exactly good. Had the Japanese ambushed me, he would have attacked Hand-to-Hand with a much greater Kill number.

Edit:
It might even have been the other way round: The Japanese advacing into CC vs. me.
They failed to Ambush me (-1 Stealthy, +2 vs. concealed, +1 attacker in Jungle).
They were attacking H-t-H at 1:4 (his 3FP halved for my being Concealed, so 1.5FP vs. my 4FP) for a basic H-t-H Kill # of 5 @ -1 being unpinned Japanese in H-t-H.
This gave him 41.7% chance to CR me and 27.8% chance to kill me.
I took the risk, because if I survived, I blocked the path he needed to get forward quickly.

von Marwitz
 
Last edited:

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
18,301
Reaction score
5,132
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
So, somebody walk me through it. When's it advantageous to pass up a perfectly good CC attack?
One situation could be when your opponent needs to get an Infiltration result and Withdraw to grab that last building adjancent he needs for the win. Even if your attack has a good chance to kill the enemy, rolling that 6,6 could lost the game....
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
10,898
Reaction score
4,325
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
So, somebody walk me through it. When's it advantageous to pass up a perfectly good CC attack?
Bill Cirillo is playing a tournament game at Winter Offensive. He can lose 2CVP and win, or 3 and lose. Last turn, one CC left to resolve. Bill's opponent roles a 3 and kills Bill's squad. Bill attacks back, rolls a 1,1, generates a leader adding one additional CVP. The odds don't change enough for Bill so he loses 3CVP and the game. All he has to do is not attack and it's GG.

I want to lose one like this someday. -- jim
 

BattleSchool

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
4,938
Reaction score
1,659
Location
Ottawa GMT -5/-4
Country
llCanada
Bonus question - does anything change if I'm Concealed and there was no Ambush?
Yep. Don't attack, and your opponent's attack is halved. If you survive, you retain concealment and are not held in Melee.

This gives you a number of options if its your turn next: fire in PFPh, move out of Location in MPh (and possibly advance back in and ambush oppo), etc.

EX: A Japanese crew with an HMG is concealed (or HIP) when a 6-6-8 advances into Kunai. Rather than risk MAD, the crew retains concealment, facing only a 3-2 attack instead of a 3-1. It lucks out and survives CC. In its PFPh next turn, it opens up on the 6-6-8 with a 16 flat, with possibility of ROF. Even if the attack fails, the 6-6-8 will suffer target-selection limits. The most likely outcome of USMC DF would be a striped crew, which can still advance out of the hex during the APh (provided it hasn't been pinned).

EX: A leader with a DC is concealed in a building when a CX 4-5-7 advances in hoping for an easy kill and a complimentary DC. Neither side ambushes the other, and the squad fails its 2-1 +1 CC attack. In his MPh the following turn, the leader Assault moves out of the Location and then "gifts" the DC to the interloper.
 

Ganjulama

Tuco B.P.J. Maria Ramirez
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
2,265
Reaction score
1,019
Location
Wilmington, NC
Country
llUnited States
Bill Cirillo is playing a tournament game at Winter Offensive. He can lose 2CVP and win, or 3 and lose. Last turn, one CC left to resolve. Bill's opponent roles a 3 and kills Bill's squad. Bill attacks back, rolls a 1,1, generates a leader adding one additional CVP. The odds don't change enough for Bill so he loses 3CVP and the game. All he has to do is not attack and it's GG.

I want to lose one like this someday. -- jim
no wonder Bill plays so methodically now. He was probably rushing back then 😁
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
1,058
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
Being concealed is the #1 cause for me not to attack in CC: better chance of survival, and of not being held in Melee. No need for horror stories of losing a game because you rolled snake eyes :)
 

Tuomo

Keeper of the Funk
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
3,816
Reaction score
3,569
Location
Rock Bottom
Country
llUnited States
A11.622 CLOSE DEFENSE WEAPON SYSTEM: Beginning in July 1944, certain German AFV are equipped with a close defense anti-personnel projector (Nahverteidigungswaffe) in their turret roof. It can be used to make a HE attack on the IFT if the AFV is BU, but only during the CCPh after the AFV or its Personnel Escort has been attacked in that CCPh (11.31) [EXC: an AFV may fire a Nahverteidigungswaffe before being attacked if it qualifies as the Ambusher; 11.4]..."
Has there been a Q&A on this? I'm tempted to wonder if the wording in red is only there as a reminder that the non-AFV side goes first.
 

Robin Reeve

φιλέω ASL אני אוהב
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
18,087
Reaction score
3,564
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
Has there been a Q&A on this? I'm tempted to wonder if the wording in red is only there as a reminder that the non-AFV side goes first.
The non-AFV side goes first, but it can attack another unit than the AFV (which would not allow the latter to use its sN).
 

Tuomo

Keeper of the Funk
Joined
Feb 10, 2003
Messages
3,816
Reaction score
3,569
Location
Rock Bottom
Country
llUnited States
The non-AFV side goes first, but it can attack another unit than the AFV (which would not allow the latter to use its sN).
This doesn't address my question. I popped off a Q&A to MMP:

A11.622 & A11.31 - If the non-sN player (who "attacks" first because Close Combat when a vehicle is involved is sequential) declines to attack at all (perhaps wishing to retain Concealment), can the sN player fire the sN in that CC? Or is firing the sN only allowed if the opposing side makes a CC attack beforehand?
 

Robin Reeve

φιλέω ASL אני אוהב
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
18,087
Reaction score
3,564
Location
St-Légier
First name
Robin
Country
llSwitzerland
My answer was trying to explain that the sequential CC due to the vehicle may lead the non-vehicle side to attack first, but not necessarly the vehicle.
After what I understand of the rule, if the AFV is not attacked, it cannot use its sN.
I hope I am clearer now.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
18,301
Reaction score
5,132
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
A11.622 & A11.31 - If the non-sN player (who "attacks" first because Close Combat when a vehicle is involved is sequential) declines to attack at all (perhaps wishing to retain Concealment), can the sN player fire the sN in that CC?
No, since then the AFV/its-Personnel-Escort had not been attacked...

Footnote 16:
16. 11.622 CLOSE DEFENSE WEAPON SYSTEM: The 92 mm grenade projector is limited to use only after being attacked in CC to force players to use it realistically as the CC defense mechanism it was, rather than as another tool in a tank’s offensive arsenal which might encourage a player to go hunting CC opportunities with his tank—something a real tank commander took great pains to avoid. By requiring that the tank or its accompanying escort be attacked first, we guarantee that the projector is being used against assaulting troops—not to seek out hidden defenders in their holes.
 

JoeArthur

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
837
Reaction score
718
Location
Broadstairs
Country
llUnited Kingdom
This came up when I had a tank in bypass of a hex where one of my squads was in CC with another squad. I attack his squad.

Even though I did not attack the tank, it could still use it's SN at 0 TEM. I was in a stone building - you would think I would get the TEM :rolleyes:

 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
12,981
Reaction score
7,696
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llGibraltar
A11.622 & A11.31 - If the non-sN player (who "attacks" first because Close Combat when a vehicle is involved is sequential) declines to attack at all (perhaps wishing to retain Concealment), can the sN player fire the sN in that CC? Or is firing the sN only allowed if the opposing side makes a CC attack beforehand?
I think there is a Footnote in the ASLRB that explains why the sN may not attack in such a situation. The gist of it is that it can't because the rules want to prevent such AFV go a'hunting for Infantry with a sN whereas in reality it was a defensive weapon.

Edit:
Reading further down-thread, I just noticed that Klas quoted that footnote.

von Marwitz
 
Top