KursruK Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 So what is the difference? The manual only gives an inappropriatly vague philosophical difference. In an assualt, the attacker gets a hefty point addition, while the defender gets fallback foxholes. This doesn't seem like a fair trade, as you can make fallback foxholes by splitting your squads anyway. I've had several people in here claim pillboxes are cheaper for the defender (in an assualt) but that is absolutly not the case. Flags appear to be a bit further back in an assualt, but that's it. So will someone explain to me, what am I missing here? I never defend in an assualt because it seems like a grossly unfair advantage for the assualter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaTyR Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 The defender gets more points allocated to the "fortifications" section. More mines, pillboxes, barb wire and maybe most importantly, trenches (which have been discussed upon and thought to be one of the best and cheapest defensive "unit" in the game). And it's ASSAULT. Try defending, you'll like it infantry squads can have huge amounts of staying power when in trenches and you can literally sow the grounds full of mines. This and the usual benefits for the defender (TRPs, deep deployment zone etc.) make for an interesting battle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 And it's also quite handy having the flags further back, too. Make the attacker pay for every single inch of ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.