Storming unbreached fortifications

[Kensai]

Is there a special reason why assaulting a fort/city in the same turn as one approaches it is not allowed? I want to emulate the 1757 Berlin raid but I find it highly improbable given that I won't be able to do anything to the city unless I bring artillery with me.

[lodilefty]

WAD. game rule. see section 12.2 in manual

You can remove this restriction by editing GameRules.opt:

// Assault not allowed without Breach
rulBreachForAssault = 1

and set value = 0

[Baris]

AFAIK you can assault fortified city(supply wagon and a gun made)/ city without a breach.

[lodilefty]

AFAIK you can assault fortified city(supply wagon and a gun made)/ city without a breach.

Arty and supply build a Fortified Camp [as at Pirna], which cannot be assaulted without a breach or a leader with 'Breacher' ability.

[Kensai]

Cool. But isn't this killing the all-out attack ROE? If you can't storm a city, structure, etc by the end of a fast march (even while admitting there is considerable risk of taking atrocious casualties as the offender), then the Hadik raid could never be portrayed. Can we find middle ground here? What about unfortified cities, can these be assaulted without siege? If someone waits for the siege, will breaches be made if you bring no artillery at all?

[lodilefty]

Cool. But isn't this killing the all-out attack ROE? If you can't storm a city, structure, etc by the end of a fast march (even while admitting there is considerable risk of taking atrocious casualties as the offender), then the Hadik raid could never be portrayed. Can we find middle ground here? What about unfortified cities, can these be assaulted without siege? If someone waits for the siege, will breaches be made if you bring no artillery at all?

Designers chose to do it this way.
Unlikely to change anytime soon, especially if it requires game engine code.
No artillery drastically reduces chance of breach.
Unfortified cities can be assaulted without breach, as is explainined in manual and tutorials.

[Baris]

I think it is just fine. Hadik or any force can assault cities after marching right away. AFAIK Pirna and other fortified camps in open terrain doesn't need breach for assault,though it is not possible to assault just after the move.. Forts has different rules, they need to breached first.

Edit: Lodilefty was faster again by 0.001 secs.

[lodilefty]

I think it is just fine. Hadik or any force can assault cities after marching right away. AFAIK Pirna and other fortified camps in open terrain doesn't need breach for assault,though it is not possible to assault just after the move.. Forts has different rules, they need to breached first.

I repeat: Fortified Camps are classified as Forts, hence need breach to assault - try it at Pirna in 1756 Campaign...

[Durk]

Cool. But isn't this killing the all-out attack ROE? If you can't storm a city, structure, etc by the end of a fast march (even while admitting there is considerable risk of taking atrocious casualties as the offender), then the Hadik raid could never be portrayed. Can we find middle ground here? What about unfortified cities, can these be assaulted without siege? If someone waits for the siege, will breaches be made if you bring no artillery at all?

While some rare moments allowed the events you seek, history of this time is the history of fortifications and prepared attacks. Do not seek the exception to prove the rule. That said, your raids can take cities. Just not fortifications.

But mostly, bring cannons and engineers and luck.

[Baris]

I repeat: Fortified Camps are classified as Forts, hence need breach to assault - try it at Pirna in 1756 Campaign...

In my AAR against Narwhal I have trusted fortified camps needs to be breached first. I thought I had the time to time to move corps south of Dresden under the protection of Fortified camp 2-3 regions west.. That was a disaster. and what difference does it make it in Pirna?