BETA AAR- Spoiler- Discussion Thread

[c3k]

Yeah, I think you're okay. I =never= mention numbers or "what would you do if he had a Leaping Lizard tank behind the barn" type of hypothetical. Any specific could leak info, or, could induce him to think there's something where there isn't. That would do the same. ("Hmmm, that poster mentioned a Leaping Lizard. I hadn't thought of that. Now I need to guard that barn with an Exigency Laser.") I ask about "your opponent" or "his forces". FWIW. Again, unless there's a clearly identified unit. Like the Sturmtiger in the CAAC. Then I'd ask about it.

Meanwhile, yeah, I'd love to see some autocannon vs. M36/Jeep action.

[slysniper]

Making comments to the players is always very challenging. Pretty much almost impossible to keep them totally neutral. Best, not to say anything at all when it comes to potential tactics to be used.

 

I just see Baneman at some point exposing the flanks of his few precise tanks and that they will be destroyed in no dramatic fashion. Then the excitement will be over.

I am just not a fan of QB's and this is again a fine example of a very unrealistic battle because of it.  For if you did by some chance find yourself in this kind of match up in real life. Baneman actually would have a huge advantage since there is no combined arms in play on defense. But because of the clock and the goals set which does not match the force selected. Its just turns into unrealistic tactical battle.

 

Infantry is to infiltrate and hold ground, Let the enemy try to dig you out with that armor formation only. Not happening.

Limited armor resources should be used to support that infantry infiltration at one point. Great use if this was not a restricted battle in too little time. Terrible use because it is a clock test battle.

 

Qb's is about selecting the right force for the game requirements. Not for selecting the best forces.

 

Bil was expecting a Heavy Armor assault, and baneman did not provide it. Too bad, because this was what the game required with the parameters selected.

 

 

 

 

 

[mbarbaric]

 

Bil was expecting a Heavy Armor assault, and baneman did not provide it. Too bad, because this was what the game required with the parameters selected.

 

i don't like qb's for all the reasons you have already mentioned. however i wonder what are the parameters would make this mostly armored battle as Bill suggests? Only parameter  i might imagine is them deciding it so, which should have really been done in my opinion. this way we get a strange battle that would never had happened.

 

would like to actually see some historic encounters in these AAR's. 

[Holien]

I prefer to play scenarios double blind that are designed from historic situations, but if we had an AAR using a scenario from the new game it for me would stop me playing it double blind. For ages I did not read some threads in CMBN as I wanted to avoid any spoilers.

Also you then have the problem of play balance, at least with points choices it is placed in players hands.

[slysniper]

 however i wonder what are the parameters that would make this mostly armored battle as Bill suggests?

. 

Just by the simple fact that the game was set with a very restricted time frame and plenty of map to have to cover. plus open ground. All these would indicate the attacker to select a mobile armored force.

Let alone the fact that the Germans have the heaver armor in general, so they have the upper hand just by going that direction in the game.

So Bil planned accordingly.

 

Where as baneman, appears to have anticipated a more traditional combined arms force on defence and thought he would meet Bils defensive lines on the first objectives. So he purchased a force where he felt his infantry could outgun the enemy infantry he meet and went light on the armor hoping it would be enough to handle what he likely felt would be a much smaller support in armor units on the defensive side.  Even with that thought process, he should have doubled his armor units and kept his infantry with mobile transport available.

 

The time restriction is the biggest factor for Baneman not having selected correctly. Given time, what Bil has is nothing more than a hit and run force. But that is exactly what he is doing and all he is playing with is the stopping baneman in that time frame.  Well Baneman did it for Bil before the match ever started by not playing a mobile battle to begin with.

 

[MikeyD]

If Baneman can get the Jagdtiger into a good overwatch position without getting bogged that's gong to severely restrict Bil's maneuver ability across the center of the map. I checked Bil's force selection and couldn't see any artillery, besides a mortar (I think). So he's not going to be dropping 105mm WP onto the Jagdtiger position. Jagdtiger's a wildcard. Either Bil won't be able to dent it even with 90mm or Baneman's going to get a 'gun hit' from the first round fired at it.

'

[mbarbaric]

Just by the simple fact that the game was set with a very restricted time frame and plenty of map to have to cover. plus open ground. All these would indicate the attacker to select a mobile armored force.

Let alone the fact that the Germans have the heaver armor in general, so they have the upper hand just by going that direction in the game.

So Bil planned accordingly.

 

oh, thanks for well thought explanation, that really nails it. 

there should be some kind of combined arms approach as mandatory and timeframe shuold be ditched allthogether.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I prefer to play scenarios double blind that are designed from historic situations, but if we had an AAR using a scenario from the new game it for me would stop me playing it double blind. For ages I did not read some threads in CMBN as I wanted to avoid any spoilers.

Also you then have the problem of play balance, at least with points choices it is placed in players hands.

They're damned either way. As you say, playing one of the historical scenarios would keep some people from reading the AAR.

Also, the preferences of the AAR players themselves cannot be discounted and Bil enjoys playing "no rules" QBs.

[slysniper]

oh, thanks for well thought explanation, that really nails it. 

there should be some kind of combined arms approach as mandatory and timeframe shuold be ditched allthogether.

Well, that is easier said than done. You must remember it is a game,. and to make the game work you must have a limited time set.

 

Without a time limit, I can promise you every talented player would win on the offensive side almost every game. Given unlimited time almost guarantees the attacker the ability to take advantage of the situation with his numbers advantage.

 

So time is the only tool there is to force how many options the offense has and how aggressive you want to force them to play.

 

There is needs for these things to help reflect the real life situation.

 

 

 

[Bud Backer]

The battles are few and far between where neither side was under time constraints. 

I see nothing inherently wrong with QBs, for AARs or general play. There is always a risk that a battle may go very differently than anyone expects. One can minimize it by imposing some restrictions like % composition requirements, and playing with the time and environmental factors to present a "situation" without making a full scenario. 

Bil's choice is one that is high risk and that is the sticking point here more than anything, I feel. 

[Macisle]

Well, that is easier said than done. You must remember it is a game,. and to make the game work you must have a limited time set.

 

Without a time limit, I can promise you every talented player would win on the offensive side almost every game. Given unlimited time almost guarantees the attacker the ability to take advantage of the situation with his numbers advantage.

 

So time is the only tool there is to force how many options the offense has and how aggressive you want to force them to play.

 

There is needs for these things to help reflect the real life situation.

 

 

 

That is something that I learned making my first scenario. At first, I had 90 minutes to allow for "realistic" scouting, probing, and shifting of approach. It quickly became apparent that the time needed to be trimmed to give the defender a chance. I ended up trimming three times down to 55 minutes.

In addition to time limits being a necessity for game balance, they are also quite realistic. Nothing happens in a vacuum in war. If you don't take the village by such-and-such a time, enemy reinforcements arrive, or your artillery has to support someone else, or...the weather clears and the enemy planes rain down on you.

It's an iron rule that I play with whatever time limit the scenario has given because I know that it's there for a reason.

However, I often make my own never-to-be-released SP scenarios where I have a high time limit. But in those, the defending enemy is usually 1 to 1 or stronger against me as the attacker and has a quality edge (I always use Typical for my side, unless I am the SS, in which case I dial down the stats). Otherwise, there just isn't enough traction given the large amount of time at hand.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Macisle

[Vanir Ausf B]

From Baneman's latest post it seems that Bil's lack of infantry is forcing him to use dismounted tank crew as a forward screen/lookout. It's not clear if these are from the knocked out TDs or if Bil dismounted them. I am guessing the former, but if it's the latter it could be another bad turn for Bil.

[AttorneyAtWar]

Well, that is easier said than done. You must remember it is a game,. and to make the game work you must have a limited time set.

 

Without a time limit, I can promise you every talented player would win on the offensive side almost every game. Given unlimited time almost guarantees the attacker the ability to take advantage of the situation with his numbers advantage.

 

So time is the only tool there is to force how many options the offense has and how aggressive you want to force them to play.

 

There is needs for these things to help reflect the real life situation.

 

 

 

I wish that were true for me

This especially bothered me when I read that most players don't even use the "attack" game mode because the attacker simply has far too much at his disposal, however it reflects the 3:1 advantage an attacker usually has. This doesn't apply to me because I am just simply not very good at the game, but time does help me develop the situation better. What are some other ways this attacker "advantage" can be remedied other than house rules and stricter time limits?

Edited December 28, 2015 by Raptorx7

[A Canadian Cat]

I have found probe QBs work quite well. The defense has a reasonable chance as does the attacker.

[slysniper]

Probe is the best option for qb's.

Back when I messed with designing scenarios for awhile. I found that the base for a good design within the game and making a competitive scenario for h2h play worked generally sit around a 3/2 point ratio. So if the defense had 2000, I used about 3000 points of equipment for offense.

Now other factors also apply. terrain and defensive strong points could make me have to push that ratio up a bit.  But even then it was 5/3.  I always found that 2/1 ratio seemed to guarantee the offence would smash through the map.

I did a few at 4/3 also. that was to make sure that the offence would get bogged down generally and it turns into more of a meeting engagement.

 

But these numbers really do not equate well with Real world numbers.

Most attacks as mentioned look for 3 to 1 ratio advantage.  ( a number that somewhat guarantees the attack a good chance for success.)  a 2 to 1 ratio is about the min. you would see a real army use unless of course they were in a desperate situation where all this is not possible.

 

But I have seen and played a few battles in the game with that type of balance and it is not even entertaining in the least.

 

Keep in mind, most players are looking for a claw and tooth battle where the last few solders on the last turn determine the win. You know Hollywood stuff. Not real life stuff.

[Holien]

Interesting situation on Bil's left flank, if done well could distract his tanks and cause some opportunities.

Sly a pm on the way...

[Macisle]

I have found probe QBs work quite well. The defense has a reasonable chance as does the attacker.

I didn't know about this being a general trend, but for SP QBs, I've been using Probe exclusively for a long time now. I also usually put in some minus points for me as the Attacker to help balance a bit more. Basically, the more time you have, the more enemy units you need. If the time limit is long enough to allow for pretty much anything, then 1:1 would be minimum for decent traction.

In H2H, I agree that the "real world" ratios of 2:1 or 3:1 A vs. D are very hard to make work because the time has to be shaved down extremely and the map needs to really favor the defender. The scenario I mentioned a few posts above offered good defensive terrain and I had the force mix at roughly 2:1 with some bones for the defender. However, like I said, I still had to cut the time down to give the defender a chance. I really didn't want to do that, but it was either that or give the defender something like 3:2. I agree with that ratio being the sweet spot for H2H play if you want to avoid having to be aggressive with the time limit.

I think the root of this is the same as for game casualties vs. RL casualties. Attacking players are far more aggressive and ignoring of casualties than their RL counterparts are. So, where in RL, if the defender gave the attacker a good opening jab, he might stop and call for massive artillery or shift the attack plan, both ending the scenario time frame, the game attacker shrugs the casualties off as "first blood" and keeps pushing.

For awhile now, my most desired enhancement for the Editor would be to allow the designer to package completely different SP and MP "products" under one scenario file. As things stand, it's very hard to achieve adequate SP difficulty and offer H2H balance at the same time. In fact, it would be great to have one output for H2H and one each for SP Attacker and Defender (3 different targeted scenarios under one scenario file).

Edited December 29, 2015 by Macisle

[slysniper]

 

For awhile now, my most desired enhancement for the Editor would be to allow the designer to package completely different SP and MP "products" under one scenario file. As things stand, it's very hard to achieve adequate SP difficulty and offer H2H balance at the same time. In fact, it would be great to have one output for H2H and one each for SP Attacker and Defender (3 different targeted scenarios under one scenario file).

It would be nice.

But at the moment it could still be achieved, it just requires publishing the scenario three times. One for  each design intent and to have it labeled thus.

But again since most scenarios are designed for free and  by volunteer efforts, it is hard to expect so much out of them.

I know I just cannot even find the motivation to create any to share anymore because of the time needed to invest to do it now.

But a attempt at balance for all three types of play would greatly improve the play, but it has always been a problem with the games and for 15 years no one has ever really tried to correct it.

 

Now lets get back to this AAR, these guys need to give us some action to talk about

[womble]

One thing with the RL ratios is that they're ratios of personnel and equipment, usually, and take no consideration of any fortifications/preparations made by the defending side. So, in a platonically ideal world, the attacker and defender would get assigned the same number of points, and the defender would be required to spend half or 2/3 of his points buying fortifications or "preparations" (whatever that might entail, and it'd probably have to involve some selection of terrain...  ) so that the situation is "fair", and the attacker has the "historical" ratio of men and tanks to the defender...

[poesel]

One thing with the RL ratios is that they're ratios of personnel and equipment, usually, and take no consideration of any fortifications/preparations made by the defending side. So, in a platonically ideal world, the attacker and defender would get assigned the same number of points, and the defender would be required to spend half or 2/3 of his points buying fortifications or "preparations" (whatever that might entail, and it'd probably have to involve some selection of terrain...  ) so that the situation is "fair", and the attacker has the "historical" ratio of men and tanks to the defender...

I actually have played some QBs with these rules and it worked quite good. Its a bit tricky with armed fortifications (bunker with MGs or ATGs) but it can be handled.

[Holien]

Back to topic,

cracking turn for Bil, the end is neigh.... for Baneman

[wadepm]

Oh I don't know.  Baneman has plenty left and time to use it.  But he will have to push it from here on in.  Should be interesting...  

[womble]

How solid a handle does Bil think he has on Baneman's force? If he is confident that there's just big Kitty and 3-4 Panthers, he'll be very pleased with that turn.

[c3k]

Ouch... I think the two exchanges (Bil's Hellcats and that Panther) leave the two sides about as they were at the beginning, relative to one another.

Bil saw a solid opportunity and took it. Baneman needs to use overwatch and prevent freebies like that.

Meantime, the infantry slowly advances.

[Holien]

Oh I don't know.  Baneman has plenty left and time to use it.  But he will have to push it from here on in.  Should be interesting...  

i have just double checked and I am pretty sure he only started with 3 Panthers and the big boy. So he has lost a third of the Panthers. More importantly he has a hole in his middle which if / when Bil realises can be exploited by an armoured thrust to split the German attack.

This would force Baneman to turn sideways and cause the end of the big boy.

just my 2p on where it could go next.