Jump to content

Quick Battle point allocation question


Recommended Posts

I was messing around with the quick battle function, and I discovered that the point allocation in assault / defence, attack / defence battles was approximately 3.5 / 2, and 3 / 2 respectively.

I was expecting 3 / 1, and 2 / 1.

Is there any specific reason why the defender gets more than half the attackers point allocation in both modes ?

Edited by bangers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply.

What you say makes sense, especially given the fact that the defender will undoubtedly have to spend some points on trenches, foxholes, etc. So one could regard the extra point allocation as a "bunker bonus" :) 

However, I am curious to see how a 2:1 ratio att / def QB would work out against another human, so watch this space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bangers said:

What you say makes sense, especially given the fact that the defender will undoubtedly have to spend some points on trenches, foxholes, etc. So one could regard the extra point allocation as a "bunker bonus" :) 

Maybe that's the intention, but trenches and foxholes are pretty useless in this game, so a cunning opponent would use his points for more or better troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IanL said:

Some people make that claim. Some do it frequently. I disagree. It is possible that there are tweaks that can be made for small arms fire but there is no better place to be than hiding in a fox hole or trench when artillery is dropping on you. None.

Ok, I don't really have the time to test it, so I guess I will have to find out the hard way :)

Edited by bangers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bangers said:
4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Maybe that's the intention, but trenches and foxholes are pretty useless in this game

That's a worry, is this something other players have noticed ?

Maybe I should have elaborated on that. Trenches and foxholes do provide some protection against artillery, but not that much against direct fire. They are a lousy fighting position. In a shootout between your guys in foxholes and the enemy behind bocage, you will lose.

Against artillery, you need to have your troops hiding or covering in the foxholes at the moment of impact to get the full effect. Even so, I just played a game where one of my guys was killed by a 105 landing about 30m away, while he was fully prone in a foxhole.

Anyway, they are surely better than nothing. But the reason I said they were nearly useless is because in a game of CMBN, there will nearly always be some better cover nearby, and your best bet against artillery is to move away from the zone where it hits. Also, multiplayer games are about mobility. If you try to sit still and defend, you will usually lose.

In addition, foxholes and trenches are very easy to spot, and especially in multiplayer you really don't want that.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, IanL said:

there is no better place to be than hiding in a fox hole or trench when artillery is dropping on you. None.

I'd say a house offers better protection actually. In the game at least. Better protection against direct or very close ground impacts, and better protection against airburst shells too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'd say a house offers better protection actually. In the game at least. Better protection against direct or very close ground impacts, and better protection against airburst shells too.

I concure :-)

Joe

Edited by JoMc67
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However sometimes some empty foxholes or trenches are useful to make the enemy waste shells and bullets. I noticed especially say if i have 3 hills and i place foxholes or trenches on 2 where i know theyll be seen. The third has an atg or atgm hiding. The enemy seeing a trench or foxhole on a high los point will undoubtedly shell it and shoot at it. And more often than not with tanks. And the best way to even get crappy troops to spot a tank is for it to be firing on their line of sight at something else. Something about the flash and loud bang attracts attention :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...