Force Ratios and difficulty level

[ilhan89bln]

Hi guys,

as some of you might have realized I am pretty new to the CM series and CMBS. I have a question in regards to force ratios in the battles and scenarios. This question was prompted by playing the battle Objective Delta.

I always play on Iron as I want the most realistic experience possible, but I have started to doubt that this is possible in the pre-made battles and scenarios. I am attacking with a reinforced Stryker platoon. So far, I have taken out 1 tank and 9 IFVs, which leads me to believe that I am at least up against a reinforced Russian motorized rifle company. This ratio is off, the attacker is outnumbering me 2:1, and even though I do have CAS and artillery available, this makes me wonder. Thinking as a PL attacking against an enemy in prepared positions that outnumbers me at least 2:1, in terrain that severely restricts my own maneuver, an enemy with weapons more capable than my Strykers (which are not amphibious and do not have ATGMs) and more artillery, and a time cap of only one hour, this mission seems to me like suicide. Yes, obviously it can happen in real life that I am tasked to attack a squad with my platoon and end up attacking a company defending out of prepared defenses, but that's when I radio to higher and tell them "hey, I have a company up against my platoon, I won't be able to do all this by myself". Any commander ordering a Stryker platoon to attack against a reinforced Russian motorized rifle company is just throwing men into the meatgrinder.

So to make matters short, it seems like the conditions seem way off in many battles and that leaves me wondering:
what am I missing? Am I getting this all wrong?

Cheers,

Ilhan

[Muzzleflash1990]

The force ratios are different from the typical 3-to1. But you are also playing against an AI (i'm assuming). The AI might have some extremely specific reactions, but it can never adapt its defense in the same manner as a human player. So once you cracked a critical part of the defense, and don't make any major mistakes, you have typically cracked it all.

From my understanding (amongst others from reading FM, particularly US), the force ratio is only a planning aid, to determine whether a COA is feasible. It does not necessarily follow that the execution of any plan developed based on the COA will be derived and use the force ratio so rigidly.

 

 

Quote

Planners must not develop and recommend COAs based solely on mathematical analyses of force ratios. Although some numerical relationships are used in this process, the estimate is largely subjective. It requires assessing both tangible and intangible factors, such as friction or enemy will and intentions. Numerical force ratios do not include the human factors of warfare that, many times, are more important than the number of tanks or tubes of artillery. The staff must carefully consider and integrate the intangible factors into their comparisons.  (emphasis added)

But let me asks you: you have destroyed the better part of an "unreinforced" MRC; how much have you lost so far? And how is your Stryker platoon reinforced?

Edited September 9, 2017 by Muzzleflash1990

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, ilhan89bln said:

This ratio is off, the attacker is outnumbering me 2:1, and even though I do have CAS and artillery available, this makes me wonder. Thinking as a PL attacking against an enemy in prepared positions that outnumbers me at least 2:1, in terrain that severely restricts my own maneuver, an enemy with weapons more capable than my Strykers (which are not amphibious and do not have ATGMs) and more artillery, and a time cap of only one hour, this mission seems to me like suicide.

This is the same complaint that I have made over the years, and is a major reason why I seldom play ready made scenarios, preferring to "roll my own" by playing Quick Battles that I can adjust to my own sense of what is realistic. Muzzleflash 1990 does make a good point, but for you and me it may sometimes be beside the point. My own opinion is that most battles and campaigns have been designed to be played by two players who understandably both want a fair chance to win. But in real life, a sane attacker rarely gives his enemy a fair chance. The advantage may or may not lie in numbers, but he does want some assurance that he possesses a decisive edge of some kind.

So, I guess the solution to your dilemma is to be very choosy which battles you play. You can do like me and play QBs, which is the easiest way to go, or you can learn how to use the editor and design your own scenarios. If you choose the latter course and get good at it, you would be welcome to share your designs with the rest of the community.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

My own opinion is that most battles and campaigns have been designed to be played by two players who understandably both want a fair chance to win. But in real life, a sane attacker rarely gives his enemy a fair chance.

This. Mind you play campaigns against humans is not really doable but the point is the other side needs a chance to win too. @Michael Emrys's advice is the way to go to get that overwhelming force scenario.

 

[ilhan89bln]

I get what you all are saying, but imho a Stryker platoon attacking a motorized rifle company out of prepared positions is not balanced.

But I see what you are saying. I have to get into scenario design.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

Mind you play campaigns against humans is not really doable...

You're right. I slipped up on that part.

Michael