Question about what troop ratio between defender and attacher

[lcm1977]

I just learned how to make a scenario and was wondering what was considered to be a fair ratio between the forces.  Maybe there isn't one as I know a lot would depend on the overall circumstances 

but if you had to voice an opinion what would you think fair.  

 

In a quick battle they make it easy by having points to spend but there is no such valve in scenario's so kinda wondering.  

 

Thanks

[AttorneyAtWar]

1:3 is the magic number for attacking (3 attackers to 1 defender).

Edited August 30, 2015 by Raptorx7

[sburke]

There are force multiples though that can affect the troop ratio (minefields, terrain, artillery etc).  Even the QB point system can't really take that all into account.  This is where play testing your scenario becomes so important.

 

Enjoy though Lee, nice to see another person taking a shot at this.  Are you messing at all with triggers?

[Combatintman]

Lee, congrats on your decision to jump into the editor and have a go at scenario making. You're right that putting a scenario together is more than just focusing on force ratios. To get it right you really need to have a clear idea of what the narrative is and what the outcomes are. So as Raptorx7 says, 3:1 is a good starting point but it shouldn't be your absolute rule. If you are designing for H2H as an example, you will probably need to aim for closer force parity to make the scenario challenging for both players.

 

If you haven't done so already - check this thread out

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/109190-the-sheriff-of-oosterbeek-–-a-scenario-design-daraar/

 

Although I've got a few CMSF scenarios under my belt, I keep coming back to this thread before I start any new project, this is less for the mechanics of the editor and more for reasons of design philosophy and the scenario narrative. I think another useful tip is to read a few AARs and I'll shamelessly plug mine (which is an ongoing planning tutorial with an AAR following) here:

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120527-no-plan-survives-first-contact-with-the-enemy-planning-tutorial/

 

If you look at the planning part of this, you get an insight as to how I have tried to solve the problem set by the scenario designer. Additionally, I use some of these techniques in my own scenario design – have a close look at the resourcing part of the thread (Question 5). By looking at AARs you get insights as to how players tackle their battles which again can add value to the scenario design process. You can then use all of this information to inform your force picks and balancing.

[womble]

3:1 numerical odds is pretty strong for CM. That's the sort of odds IRL that the attacker is seeking to have before committing to a deliberate attack on a prepared (but not fortified or protected by significant terrain, like a river with restricted crossing points) position while having very little chance of failure and taking acceptable casualties. At that sort of odds, the attacker will almost always, in the CM environment, thoroughly clobber the defender, and be able to seize any terrain objectives they're assigned, assuming equally skilled players and excluding terrain that is very advantageous indeed for the defender. Such a battle would need some imaginative VCs if you wanted to give it a score, and would be an exercise in damage limitation on the attacker's part. Giving the attacker a very short timescale might balance things up too.

 

All fine if you want to simulate a situation where the defending side is going to lose, and the players are keenly aware of that at the beginning, with the manner of the loss being the matter in question. Even Assault QBs don't give the attacker 3x the purchase points, though any fortifications the defender feels he needs will have to come out of his allocation, and there have been some opinions (which I tend to agree with) expressed that Assault QBs are shaded a bit too strongly in the attacker's favour.

 

But I feel that there would be more uptake of a scenario that gave the defender a chance of stopping the attacker, a situation that the operational skills of RL leaders would seek to avoid (by having 3:1 superiority or better before committing to an attack).

[lcm1977]

Thank you gentlemen.  Lots more info than I had even hoped to get and very appreciative for you time and replies.  

 

This has opened up a whole new world for me and I don't see an end to it which is fine with me btw.   I can see how detailed this could get and I am pretty excited about it.  Really makes me understand and appreciate how much is put into

the making of a scenario.   

 

sburke I have seen that choice/ feature but have not really played around with it yet.  Is there a reason you asked about that particular feature?  I'd be interested in any comments about it you might like to make.  

 

Thanks Combatintman for those sites I will surely check them out.  Great to have!

 

Womble I appreciate all that advice.  Some good points I haven't really thought about - until now.  I especially like the idea about making a scenario where one would have to really work at overcoming the defender.  Thanks for 

planting that idea.  I suppose it'll take some testing to get the correct ratio down.  

 

In the foreseeable future I doubt anybody will ever see a scenario that I made except me but hey if I ever do one that is 100% correct and seems worth it you just might.    

 

Thanks again guys.  I really do appreciate it! 

[womble]

Heh. Don't worry about getting it 100% correct before you release it. That's what the Designer's Notes (plus viewing the battlefield after the end, and maybe taking a squint at the other side's initial OOB once it's over, so you can see what you were up against and draw your own conclusions based on your briefing) are for

[Sublime]

i wont play assault qbs. imthey are waaaaayyy point favored to the attacker. istr its 3:1 or a little more. maybe im wrong and its a little less. when someone can blow all that on troops theres nothing defense can do.

attacks i sometimes do. i rarely do MEs bexause theyre pretty inherently unrealistic. i like probes best. it doesnt really have to be a probe in whatever backstory your qb has and you still have an attacker and defender. but since its a qb and still more or less a pretty chess game you get yhe closest approximation of point values to 1:1 though of course its not - thats MEs in probes attackers get more points but its quite reasonable for the defender i wouldnt even say a 2:1 advantage

[womble]

i wont play assault qbs. imthey are waaaaayyy point favored to the attacker. istr its 3:1 or a little more. maybe im wrong and its a little less. when someone can blow all that on troops theres nothing defense can do.

attacks i sometimes do. i rarely do MEs bexause theyre pretty inherently unrealistic. i like probes best. it doesnt really have to be a probe in whatever backstory your qb has and you still have an attacker and defender. but since its a qb and still more or less a pretty chess game you get yhe closest approximation of point values to 1:1 though of course its not - thats MEs in probes attackers get more points but its quite reasonable for the defender i wouldnt even say a 2:1 advantage

A quick look at Tiny sized battles in CMBN gives ratios of (to 1DP): 2.0:1 for Assault, 1.6:1 for Attack and 1.4:1 for Probe. Long time since I went and looked and did the arithmetic and those are lower than I remember. Which prompted me to look at Huge battles, and those ratios are different:1.8; 1.7 and 1.5 to one respectively. Don't have the time to look at every battle size.

[Sublime]

though the ratios seem small it can male a huge difference. womble can you check BS and BN when you get the chance and post or pm me.results? my gut tells me in BS at least its alot different like assault 3:1 attack 2:1 probe 1.5:1

[LiveNoMore]

Lee,

 

I've been making scenarios for a couple of years now. I jumped into it for fun. The first couple were way out of balance. I found that I usually gave one side or the other way too many assets. Once the map was completed (a modified QB map or one I made from scratch) and I started placing units, I could see the imbalance. Then I would set a defense up in one area (giving the defenders the best status available) and attack it with the forces that would be in that part of the map. Just a couple of turns. This gave me a quick indication if the battle would be one sided or not. I believe this has improved my scenario building skills. Most of mine are H2H because that is the way I like to play. I've tried a couple with the defender having an AI and found that creating a good, responsive AI is very hard. Like Combatintman said, the narrative is the key to making a good scenario. Know how you want the scenario to go and work towards that.

 

Good luck with it!

[womble]

though the ratios seem small it can male a huge difference. womble can you check BS and BN when you get the chance and post or pm me.results? my gut tells me in BS at least its alot different like assault 3:1 attack 2:1 probe 1.5:1

Can't check BS cos I only have FI and BN and the ratios I posted are from BN. I agree that the difference between conducting a Probe and an Assault is quite significant. Why the ratios change as the battle size changes I couldn't say.

[sburke]

Lee if you meant my reference to triggers, those are what allow you to configure a possible AI response to player moves.

For example you could have a battle where the player has choices for an axis of advance. Depending on which they chose you could have triggers that cause the AI that would have been defending the other axis to conduct a spoiling attack into the players flank

I have yet to really put time into those, but there is a lot of potential for creating a sceanarios where the AI is more responsive to player moves.

It is definitely a more advanced option but not necessarily that much harder. It will take some messing around with to get comfortable, but is a nice addition to the design toolkit.

[lcm1977]

Thanks sburke.  That certainly sounds interesting to say the least so I will be playing with it but probably not for awhile as I'm really still learning all the other stuff.  I can see where that would really make the scenario a lot 

more interesting and unpredictable for both the player and designer.  That Battlefront guys think of everything.  Thanks for the info.

 

Some good ideas liveNoMore.  I like the idea of determining balance in a short amount of time.  Hadn't thought of that.  Also thanks for mentioning what Combatintman said.  I shall try that.  

 

Womble I like the idea of viewing the after action results.  I hope I would have thought to do it but glad you mentioned it.  I can understand where that would be of great help.  I appreciate it.   

what you are saying.  Thanks

 

Thanks for the info sublime.  Adds some info to my knowledge.  I'm really not familiar with anything except attack believe it or not.  That's all I've ever played.  Really!  So you info helps me see the difference.  I guess I'll 

now have to check into the others for a better understanding of the differences.  Appreciate you mentioning the ratio's.  Even if not 100% accurate I see your point.  

 

I was thinking the other night before going to sleep that BF is pretty smart.  They aren't producing the game to play but to get people hooked on the editor.  Pretty smooth of them.  

[womble]

Womble I like the idea of viewing the after action results.  I hope I would have thought to do it but glad you mentioned it.  I can understand where that would be of great help.  I appreciate it.   

what you are saying.  Thanks

 

To be clear, what I'm suggesting is that some players don't mind making their own assessment of how they've done, and they do that by examining the final outcome, and the initial force dispositions (after the battle is finished, so as not to spoil FoW), and comparing that with what their briefing said. Good designers notes as part of the scenario texts help them make that assessment, or let them know that you're not 100% happy with the way you've pitched the VCs, so they need to do some post-battle assessment of their own to decide how they did.

[Sublime]

Can't check BS cos I only have FI and BN and the ratios I posted are from BN. I agree that the difference between conducting a Probe and an Assault is quite significant. Why the ratios change as the battle size changes I couldn't say.

To be clear im all cmx2 games the only differences in battles are the point values and in assaults the attacker may perhaps get a couple of ? marks on possible enemy positions.

the reason theres a difference in points is this. an assault assumes the attack has been well preplanned and stocked and been readied ahead of time significantly. think like day one of a major op. an attack is less so but still an attack. think of during an operation a unit is ambushed in a town down the road. you.re ordered to atyacl but have till nightfall (just an example) to conduct said attack. a probe is your forces moving cautiously ahead trying to find the enemy and how strong he is. is this just stragglees that csn be overrun? or are we ovwr our heads and need to withdraw?

a meeting engagement is two forces unaware of eachother that by chance crash into eachother. thats the idea anyways. it really just plays out to points and setup zones. MEs is like both sides are attackers and equal points. probes you get aytacl defense (defender has more of the map etc) and everything can be done that is done in other battles the attacler gets more points to be fair, hes attackjng but not so many as to make a chance of winning impossible. imo if you take two even matched pbem players and one assaults the defender prolly has a ten percent chance of winning. the odds are too great. atyack is hard but doable. i think the best amd most realistic test is probe. of course i use it as just a name i only use probe so both sides are close in points and the skill really comes into play.

[womble]

To be clear im all cmx2 games the only differences in battles are the point values and in assaults the attacker may perhaps get a couple of ? marks on possible enemy positions.

the reason theres a difference in points is this. an assault assumes the attack has been well preplanned and stocked and been readied ahead of time significantly. think like day one of a major op. an attack is less so but still an attack. think of during an operation a unit is ambushed in a town down the road. you.re ordered to atyacl but have till nightfall (just an example) to conduct said attack. a probe is your forces moving cautiously ahead trying to find the enemy and how strong he is. is this just stragglees that csn be overrun? or are we ovwr our heads and need to withdraw?

a meeting engagement is two forces unaware of eachother that by chance crash into eachother. thats the idea anyways. it really just plays out to points and setup zones. MEs is like both sides are attackers and equal points. probes you get aytacl defense (defender has more of the map etc) and everything can be done that is done in other battles the attacler gets more points to be fair, hes attackjng but not so many as to make a chance of winning impossible. imo if you take two even matched pbem players and one assaults the defender prolly has a ten percent chance of winning. the odds are too great. atyack is hard but doable. i think the best amd most realistic test is probe. of course i use it as just a name i only use probe so both sides are close in points and the skill really comes into play.

The other difference you'll see between the types of battle in QBs is where the VLs are placed (when the map's big enough for some variety), as well as the distribution of points between them. Assault VLs tend to be further back in the defender's setup zone, so the defender ought to have more opportunity to set up a decent defense-in-depth, and the terrain objectives comprise a larger part of the VCs. Probe battles split their VPs near-evenly between force and terrain objectives, whereas Assault places much more emphasis on terrain over force. That ought to make the defender's job easier (requiring the increased attacker point allocation) but in practice, the VLs aren't often deep enough and the maps don't all offer the defender sufficient advantage of terrain to counter the force advantage of the attacker.

 

So if you're designing a scenario, give the defender enough room and cover to actually have a "defender's advantage" to counter the attacker's numerical/qualitative advantage. 

[Sublime]

fact.

[lcm1977]

Womble I see what you mean.  I really hadn't thought along those lines.  I always just assumed at least in my playing scenario's etc that I either whipped them or not but what you are commenting on really changes

my thoughts on playing or how I will in the future look at it.  Good points and or advice.  Gosh my old way ( now after your very well explained comments above ) seems so - mindless or simple.    Really appreciate you 

getting that across to me and taking the time to do it.  Greatly helps me understand a lot and will make my future playing or scenario designing much more interesting if not tons more complicated, but thanks. 

 

Darn Sublime.  I'm kinda embarrassed admitting this but I didn't know all that.  Extremely interesting though now that I understand the differences.  How cool!  I just never took the time to read up on the differences but

that really gives me some ideas for future games.  Never really gave a thought to meeting, attack or probe etc.  And all I really had hoped for was the ratio when I started this post.    Thank you much! 

[Sublime]

of course man thats what the boards are rlly here for. not acting like di-kheads to eachother which seems to be the current trend..

[lcm1977]

Thanks Sublime.  Yeah I know but if one is not careful one can get chewed out at times.  I hesitate quite a bit from asking at times in order not to 

bring on any negative replies.    But then at times I take my chances.  

[Sublime]

screw whoever chews you out for asking a question. this board has gotten way too snooty lately and new player unfriendly. dont hesitate to ask and dont hesitate to call out someone on being a $hitbag

[lcm1977]

Thanks Sublime.

[gnarly]

Great thread, and great info @Sublime.   Almost wish there was a Wiki or something defining clearly the various QB types, with some screenshots of related VP locations etc.

 

Just researching my first PBEM QB to create, and this has been most informative. Was going to try ME between UKr & RUS, but maybe I'll do RUS probe into UKR.